[III.q.77.a.1.arg.1] It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.arg.2] Further, not even by miracle can the definition of a thing be severed from it, or the definition of another thing be applied to it; for instance, that, while man remains a man, he can be an irrational animal. For it would follow that contradictories can exist at the one time: for the \"definition of a thing is what its name expresses,\" as is said in Metaph. iv. But it belongs to the definition of an accident for it to be in a subject, while the definition of substance is that it must subsist of itself, and not in another. Therefore it cannot come to pass, even by miracle, that the accidents exist without a subject in this sacrament.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.arg.2] 2. Præterea, purgatio secundum divinam justitiam ordinatur ad auferendum immunditiam culpæ, sicut patet de purgatione post mortem. Sed in elementis hujus mundi nulla potest esse culpæ infectio. Ergo videtur quod purgatione non indigeant.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.arg.3] Further, an accident is individuated by its subject. If therefore the accidents remain in this sacrament without a subject, they will not be individual, but general, which is clearly false, because thus they would not be sensible, but merely intelligible.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.arg.3] 3. Præterea, unumquodque dicitur purgari, quando separatur id quod est extraneum ab ipso, inducens in eo ignobilitatem; separatio enim ejus quod nobilitatem inducit, non dicitur purgatio, sed magis diminutio. Sed hoc ad perfectionem et nobilitatem elementorum pertinet, quod aliquid extraneæ naturæ est eis admixtum, quia forma corporis mixti est nobilior quam forma simplicis. Ergo videtur quod elementa hujus mundi nullo modo convenienter possint purgari.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.arg.4] Further, the accidents after the consecration of this sacrament do not obtain any composition. But before the consecration they were not composed either of matter and form, nor of existence [quo est] and essence [quod est]. Therefore, even after consecration they are not composite in either of these ways. But this is unreasonable, for thus they would be simpler than angels, whereas at the same time these accidents are perceptible to the senses. Therefore, in this sacrament the accidents do not remain without a subject.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.sc] Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx) that \"the sacramental species are the names of those things which were there before, namely, of the bread and wine.\" Therefore since the substance of the bread and the wine does not remain, it seems that these species remain without a subject.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.sc] Sed contra, omnis innovatio fit per aliquam purgationem. Sed elementa innovabuntur: unde Apocal., xxI, 1, dicitur: Vidi cælum novum, et terram novam; primum enim cælum et prima terra abiit. Ergo elementa purgabuntur. Præterea, I Corinth., VII, super illud: Præterit figura hujus mundi, dicit Glossa: « Pulchritudo hujus mundi mundano-rum ignium conflagratione præteribit. » Et sic idem quod prius.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.co] The species of the bread and wine, which are perceived by our senses to remain in this sacrament after consecration, are not subjected in the substance of the bread and wine, for that does not remain, as stated above (Question 75, Article 2); nor in the substantial form, for that does not remain (75, 6), and if it did remain, \"it could not be a subject,\" as Boethius declares (De Trin. i). Furthermore it is manifest that these accidents are not subjected in the substance of Christ's body and blood, because the substance of the human body cannot in any way be affected by such accidents; nor is it possible for Christ's glorious and impassible body to be altered so as to receive these qualities.
\nNow there are some who say that they are in the surrounding atmosphere as in a subject. But even this cannot be: in the first place, because atmosphere is not susceptive of such accidents. Secondly, because these accidents are not where the atmosphere is, nay more, the atmosphere is displaced by the motion of these species. Thirdly, because accidents do not pass from subject to subject, so that the same identical accident which was first in one subject be afterwards in another; because an accident is individuated by the subject; hence it cannot come to pass for an accident remaining identically the same to be at one time in one subject, and at another time in another. Fourthly, since the atmosphere is not deprived of its own accidents, it would have at the one time its own accidents and others foreign to it. Nor can it be maintained that this is done miraculously in virtue of the consecration, because the words of consecration do not signify this, and they effect only what they signify.
\nTherefore it follows that the accidents continue in this sacrament without a subject. This can be done by Divine power: for since an effect depends more upon the first cause than on the second, God Who is the first cause both of substance and accident, can by His unlimited power preserve an accident in existence when the substance is withdrawn whereby it was preserved in existence as by its proper cause, just as without natural causes He can produce other effects of natural causes, even as He formed a human body in the Virgin's womb, \"without the seed of man\" (Hymn for Christmas, First Vespers).
\n[III.q.77.a.1.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quia mundus propter hominem aliquo modo factus est, oportet quod quando homo secundum corpus glorificabitur, etiam alia mundi corpora ad meliorem statum mutentur, ut sit et locus convenientior, et aspectus delectabilior. Ad hoc autem quod homo gloriam corporis consequatur, oportet prius removeri ea quæ gloriæ opponuntur; quæ sunt duo, scilicet corruptio et infectio culpæ; quia, ut dicitur I Corinth., xv, 50, corruptio * incorruptelam non possidebit, et a civitate gloriæ omnes immundi foris erunt, Apoc., ult. Et similiter etiam oportet elementa mundi purgari a contrariis dispositionibus antequam innovitatem gloriæ adducantur, proportionaliter ei quod de homine dictum est. Quamvis autem res corporalis subjectum infectionis culpæ proprie esse non possit, tamen ex culpa quædam incongruitas in rebus corporalibus relinquitur, ad hoc quod spiritualibus dedicentur; et inde videmus quod loca in quibus aliqua crimina sunt commissa, non reputantur idonea ad aliqua sacra exercenda in eis, nisi purgatione quadam præmissa. Et secundum hoc ex peccatis hominum quamdam inidoneitatem ad gloriæ susceptionem pars mundi recipit, quæ in usum nostrum cedit: unde quantum ad hoc mundatione indiget. Similiter etiam circa medium locum, propter elementorum contactum, multæ sunt corruptiones et generationes, et alterationes elementorum, quæ puritati eorum derogant. Et ideo ab his oportet elementa purgari ad hoc quod decenter suscipiant novitatem gloriæ.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.1] There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given above (75, 5).
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod cum dicitur omnis creatura Dei esse munda, hoc est intelligendum, quia non habet in substantia sua alicujus malitiæ commixtionem; sicut ponebant Manichæi dicentes malum et bonum esse duas substantias alicubi divisas, et alicubi commixitas; non autem removetur quin aliqua creatura habeat permixtionem naturæ extraneæ, quæ etiam in se bona est, sed perfectioni hujusmodi creaturæ repugnat; similiter non removetur ex hoc quin malum alicui creaturæ accidat, quamvis non sit permixtum ei quasi pars substantiae ipsius.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.2] Since being is not a genus, then being cannot be of itself the essence of either substance or accident. Consequently, the definition of substance is not--\"a being of itself without a subject,\" nor is the definition of accident--\"a being in a subject\"; but it belongs to the quiddity or essence of substance \"to have existence not in a subject\"; while it belongs to the quiddity or essence of accident \"to have existence in a subject.\" But in this sacrament it is not in virtue of their essence that accidents are not in a subject, but through the Divine power sustaining them; and consequently they do not cease to be accidents, because neither is the definition of accident withdrawn from them, nor does the definition of substance apply to them.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod quamvis elementa corporea subjectum culpæ esse non possint; tamen ex culpa commissa in eis aliquam ineptitudinem consequuntur ad perfectionem gloriæ susci-piendam.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.3] These accidents acquired individual being in the substance of the bread and wine; and when this substance is changed into the body and blood of Christ, they remain in that individuated being which they possessed before, hence they are individual and sensible.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod forma mixti et forma elementi possunt dupliciter considerari: aut quantum ad perfectionem speciei, et sic corpus mixtum est nobilius: aut quantum ad perpetuitatem durationis, et sic corpus simplex nobilius est, quia non habet in seipso unde corrumpatur, nisi ejus corruptio fiat ab aliquo exteriori. Corpus autem mixtum in seipso habet causam corruptionis suæ, scilicet compositionem contrariorum; et ideo corpus simplex, etsi sit corruptibile secundum partem, est tamen incorruptibile secundum totum; quod de mixto dici non potest. Et quia incorruptio est de perfectione gloriæ, ideo perfectio corporis simplicis magis convenit perfectioni gloriæ quam perfectio corporis mixti; nisi etiam corpus mixtum in se habeat aliquod incorruptionis principium, sicut corpus humanum, cujus forma est incorruptibilis. Nihilominus quamvis aliquo modo corpus mixtum sit nobilius quam simplex, nobilius tamen esse habet corpus simplex secundum se existens quam existens in mixto; quia in mixto sunt corpora simplicia quodammodo in potentia, in seipsis autem existentia sunt in ultima sui perfectione.
\n[III.q.77.a.1.ad.4] These accidents had no being of their own nor other accidents, so long as the substance of the bread and wine remained; but their subjects had \"such\" being through them, just as snow is \"white\" through whiteness. But after the consecration the accidents which remain have being; hence they are compounded of existence and essence, as was said of the angels, in I, 50, 2, ad 3; and besides they have composition of quantitative parts.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.1] It seems that in this sacrament the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine is not the subject of the other accidents. For accident is not the subject of accident; because no form can be a subject, since to be a subject is a property of matter. But dimensive quantity is an accident. Therefore dimensive quantity cannot be the subject of the other accidents.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.1] Ad secundum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod hæc purgatio non sit futura per ignem. Ignis enim, cum sit pars mundi, purgatione indiget, sicut et aliæ partes. Sed non debet esse idem purgans, et purgatum. Ergo videtur quod ignis non purgabit.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.2] Further, just as quantity is individuated by substance, so also are the other accidents. If, then, the dimensive quantity of the bread or wine remains individuated according to the being it had before, in which it is preserved, for like reason the other accidents remain individuated according to the existence which they had before in the substance. Therefore they are not in dimensive quantity as in a subject, since every accident is individuated by its own subject.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut ignis habet virtutem purgativam, ita et aqua. Cum ergo omnia non sint purgabilia per ignem, sed quædam necesse sit aqua purgari, sicut etiam vetus lex distinguit, videtur quod ignis non purget, ad minus universaliter.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.3] Further, among the other accidents that remain, of the bread and wine, the senses perceive also rarity and density, which cannot be in dimensive quantity existing outside matter; because a thing is rare which has little matter under great dimensions. while a thing is dense which has much matter under small dimensions, as is said in Phys. iv. It does not seem, then, that dimensive quantity can be the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.3] 3. Præterea, purgatio ad hoc videtur pertinere, ut partes mundi ad invicem segregatæ puriores reddantur. Sed segregatio partium mundi ab invicem in mundi initio sola virtute divina facta est, quia ex hac opus distinctionis determinatur: unde et Anaxagoras segregationem posuit actum intellectus moventis omnia, ut refert Aristoteles, VIII Physic., text. 77. Ergo videtur quod in fine mundi purgatio fiet immediate a Deo, et non per ignem.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.arg.4] Further, quantity abstract from matter seems to be mathematical quantity, which is not the subject of sensible qualities. Since, then, the remaining accidents in this sacrament are sensible, it seems that in this sacrament they cannot be subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains after consecration.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.sc] Qualities are divisible only accidentally, that is, by reason of the subject. But the qualities remaining in this sacrament are divided by the division of dimensive quantity, as is evident through our senses. Therefore, dimensive quantity is the subject of the accidents which remain in this sacrament.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.sc] Sed contra est quod in psal. xlix, 3, dicitur: Ignis in conspectu ejus exardebit, et in circuitu ejus tempestas valida; et postea sequitur de judicio: Advocabit cælum desursum, et terram discernere populum suum. Ergo videtur quod ultima purgatio mundi sit futura per ignem. Præterea, II Petri ult., 12, dicitur: Cæli ardentes solventur, et elementa ignis ardore tabescent. Ergo illa purgatio per ignem fiet.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.co] It is necessary to say that the other accidents which remain in this sacrament are subjected in the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine that remains: first of all, because something having quantity and color and affected by other accidents is perceived by the senses; nor is sense deceived in such. Secondly, because the first disposition of matter is dimensive quantity, hence Plato also assigned \"great\" and \"small\" as the first differences of matter (Aristotle, Metaph. iv). And because the first subject is matter, the consequence is that all other accidents are related to their subject through the medium of dimensive quantity; just as the first subject of color is said to be the surface, on which account some have maintained that dimensions are the substances of bodies, as is said in Metaph. iii. And since, when the subject is withdrawn, the accidents remain according to the being which they had before, it follows that all accidents remain founded upon dimensive quantity.
\nThirdly, because, since the subject is the principle of individuation of the accidents, it is necessary for what is admitted as the subject of some accidents to be somehow the principle of individuation: for it is of the very notion of an individual that it cannot be in several; and this happens in two ways. First, because it is not natural to it to be in any one; and in this way immaterial separated forms, subsisting of themselves, are also individuals of themselves. Secondly, because a form, be it substantial or accidental, is naturally in someone indeed, not in several, as this whiteness, which is in this body. As to the first, matter is the principle of individuation of all inherent forms, because, since these forms, considered in themselves, are naturally in something as in a subject, from the very fact that one of them is received in matter, which is not in another, it follows that neither can the form itself thus existing be in another. As to the second, it must be maintained that the principle of individuation is dimensive quantity. For that something is naturally in another one solely, is due to the fact that that other is undivided in itself, and distinct from all others. But it is on account of quantity that substance can be divided, as is said in Phys. i. And therefore dimensive quantity itself is a particular principle of individuation in forms of this kind, namely, inasmuch as forms numerically distinct are in different parts of the matter. Hence also dimensive quantity has of itself a kind of individuation, so that we can imagine several lines of the same species, differing in position, which is included in the notion of this quantity; for it belongs to dimension for it to be \"quantity having position\" (Aristotle, Categor. iv), and therefore dimensive quantity can be the subject of the other accidents, rather than the other way about.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod illa mundi purgatio, ut dictum est, removebit a mundo infectionem ex culpa relictam, et impuritatem commixtionis; et erit dispositio ad gloriæ perfectionem. Et ideo quantum ad hæc tria convenientissime fiet per ignem purgatio. Primo quia ignis, cum sit nobilissimum elementorum, habet naturales proprietates similiores proprietatibus gloriæ, ut maxime patet de luce. Secundo quia ignis non ita recipit commixtionem extranei propter efficaciam suæ virtutis activæ, sicut alia elementa. Tertio quia sphæra ignis est remota a nostra habitatione; nec ita communis est nobis usus ignis, sicut terræ, aquæ et aeris: unde non ita inficitur, et praeter hoc habet maximam efficaciam ad purgandum et ad dividendum subtiliando.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.1] One accident cannot of itself be the subject of another, because it does not exist of itself. But inasmuch as an accident is received in another thing, one is said to be the subject of the other, inasmuch as one is received in a subject through another, as the surface is said to be the subject of color. Hence when God makes an accident to exist of itself, it can also be of itself the subject of another.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ignis non venit in usum nostrum, prout est materia propria, sic enim remotus est a nobis, sed solum prout est in materia aliena; et quantum ad hoc poterit purgari mundus per ignem in sua puritate existentem. Quantum vero ad hoc quod habet de extraneo adjunctum, poterit purgari; et sic diverso respectu idem erit purgans et purgatum, quod non est inconveniens.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.2] The other accidents, even as they were in the substance of the bread, were individuated by means of dimensive quantity, as stated above. And therefore dimensive quantity is the subject of the other accidents remaining in this sacrament, rather than conversely.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod prima purgatio mundi quæ facta est per diluvium, non respiciebat nisi infectionem peccati. Præcipue autem tunc regnabat peccatum concupiscentiae; et ideo convenienter per contrarium purgatio facta fuit, scilicet per aquam. Sed secunda purgatio respicit et infectionem culpæ, et commixtionis impuritatem; et quantum ad utrumque convenit magis quod fiat per ignem quam per aquam. Aqua enim non habet vim disgregandi, sed magis congregandi: unde per aquam naturalis impuritas elementorum toli non posset, sicut per ignem. Similiter etiam circa finem mundi regnabit vitium tepidatis, quasi mundo jam senescente: quia, ut dicitur Matth., xxiv, 12, tunc refrigescet charitas multorum. Unde tunc convenienter purgatio per ignem fiet. Nec est aliquid quodigne purgari non possit aliquo modo. Sed quædam sunt quæ sine sui corruptione per ignem non possunt purgari, sicut panni, et vasa lignea, et hujusmodi; et talia lex præcipit purgari per aquam, quæ tamen finaliter omnia corrumpentur per ignem.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.3] Rarity and density are particular qualities accompanying bodies, by reason of their having much or little matter under dimensions; just as all other accidents likewise follow from the principles of substance. And consequently, as the accidents are preserved by Divine power when the substance is withdrawn, so, when matter is withdrawn, the qualities which go with matter, such as rarity and density, are preserved by Divine power.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod per opus distinctionis sunt rebus diversæ formæ collatæ, quibus ab invicem distinguuntur; et ideo hoc fieri non potuit nisi per eum qui est auctor naturæ. Sed per finalem purgationem reducentur res ad puritatem in qua conditæ fuerunt; et ideo in hoc poterit natura creata exhibere ministerium Creatori: et propter hoc ministerium creaturæ committitur; quia hoc ad ejus nobilitatem cedit.
\n[III.q.77.a.2.ad.4] Mathematical quantity abstracts not from intelligible matter, but from sensible matter, as is said in Metaph. vii. But matter is termed sensible because it underlies sensible qualities. And therefore it is manifest that the dimensive quantity, which remains in this sacrament without a subject, is not mathematical quantity.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.arg.1] It seems that the species which remain in this sacrament cannot affect external objects. For it is proved in Phys. vii, that forms which are in matter are produced by forms that are in matter, but not from forms which are without matter, because like makes like. But the sacramental species are species without matter, since they remain without a subject, as is evident from what was said above (Article 1). Therefore they cannot affect other matter by producing any form in it.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.arg.1] Ad tertium sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod ille ignis non sit ejusdem speciei cum igne elementari. Nihil enim seipsum consumit. Sed ille ignis quatuor elementa consumet, ut dicit Glossa 1 ord., col. 694, t. 2, II Petri, ult. Ergo ignis ille non erit ejusdem speciei cum igne elementari.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.arg.2] Further, when the action of the principal agent ceases, then the action of the instrument must cease, as when the carpenter rests, the hammer is moved no longer. But all accidental forms act instrumentally in virtue of the substantial form as the principal agent. Therefore, since the substantial form of the bread and wine does not remain in this sacrament, as was shown above (Question 75, Article 6), it seems that the accidental forms which remain cannot act so as to change external matter.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.arg.2] 2. Præterea, sicut virtus manifestatur per operationem, ita natura per virtutem. Sed ille ignis habebit aliam virtutem ab igne qui est elementum, quia scilicet purgabit universum, quod ignis iste facere non potest. Ergo non erit ejusdem speciei cum isto.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.arg.3] Further, nothing acts outside its species, because an effect cannot surpass its cause. But all the sacramental species are accidents. Therefore they cannot change external matter, at least as to a substantial form.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ea quæ sunt ejusdem speciei in corporibus naturalibus, habent eumdem motum. Sed ille ignis habebit alium motum quam ignis qui est elementum, quia circumquaque movebitur, ut totum purgare possit. Ergo non est ejusdem speciei.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.sc] If they could not change external bodies, they could not be felt; for a thing is felt from the senses being changed by a sensible thing, as is said in De Anima ii.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.sc] Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, XX De civit. Dei, cap. xvi, col. 682, t. 7 et habetur in Glossa, I ad Cor., vii, quod « figura hujus mundi mundanorum ignium conflagratione præteribit. » Ergo ignis erit de natura ignis qui nunc est in hoc mundo. Præterea, sicut purgatio futura erit per ignem, ita præcedens fuit per aquam; et utraque ad invicem comparatur, II Petri, Ⅲ. Sed in prima purgatione fuit aqua ejusdem speciei cum aqua elementari. Ergo similiter erit in secunda purgatione ignis ejusdem speciei cum igne elementari.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.co] Because everything acts in so far as it is an actual being, the consequence is that everything stands in the same relation to action as it does to being. Therefore, because, according to what was said above (Article 1), it is an effect of the Divine power that the sacramental species continue in the being which they had when the substance of the bread and wine was present, it follows that they continue in their action. Consequently they retain every action which they had while the substance of the bread and wine remained, now that the substance of the bread and wine has passed into the body and blood of Christ. Hence there is no doubt but that they can change external bodies.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hoc inventiuntur tres opiniones. Quidam enim dicunt quod ignis elementum, qui est in sphæra sua, descendet ad purgationem mundi; modum autem descensionis ponunt per multiplicationem; ignis enim, undique apposito combustibili, augmentatur: et hoc præcipue tunc fiet quando virtus ignis exaltabitur super omnia alia elementa. Sed contra hoc esse videtur quod ignis ille non tantum descendet, sed etiam a sanctis ascendere perhibetur, ut patet II Petri, Ⅲ, ubi dicitur quod tan-tum ascendet judicii ignis quantum aqua diluvii. Ex quo videtur quod ille ignis sit circa locum medium generationis. Et propter hoc alii dicunt quod ignis ille generabitur circa locum medium ex congregatione radiorum cælestium corporum, sicut videmus quod congregantur in speculo combustente; tunc autem loco speculorum erunt nubes concavæ, ad quas fiet radiorum reverberatio. Sed hoc etiam non videtur conveniens, quia cum effectus corporum cælestium sequantur determinatos situs et aspectus eorum, si ex virtute corporum cælestium ignis ille generaretur, tempus illius purgationis posset esse notum considerantibus motus astrorum; quod auctoritati Scripturæ repugnat. Et ideo alii dicunt, sequentes Augustinum, quod, « sicut mundanarum aquarum inundatione factum est diluvium; ita mundanorum ignium conflagratione figura hujus mundi præteribit, » ut dicitur XX De civit. Dei, loc. sup. cit. Ista autem conflagratio nihil aliud est quam congregatio omnium causarum inferiorum et superiorum, quæ ex natura sua habent virtutem igniendi: quæ quidem congregatio non naturali cursu rerum, sed virtute divina fiet, et ex omnibus istis causis sic congregatis generabitur ignis, qui faciem hujus mundi exuret. Si autem opiniones hæ recte considerentur, invententur diversificari quantum ad causam generationis illius ignis, et non quantum ad speciem ejus. Ignis enim generatus a sole, vel ab inferiori calefaciente, est ejusdem speciei cum igne qui est in sua sphæra, nisi inquantum admiscetur ei de materia aliena: quod quidem tunc oportebit, quia ignis non potest aliquid purgare, nisi secundum hoc quod alterum efficitur materia ejus aliquo modo. Unde simpliciter concedendum est quod ignis ille erit ejusdem speciei cum isto.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.ad.1] The sacramental species, although they are forms existing without matter, still retain the same being which they had before in matter, and therefore as to their being they are like forms which are in matter.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ignis ille, quamvis sit ejusdem speciei cum igne qui apud nos est, non tamen est idem numero. Videmus autem quod duorum ignium ejusdem speciei, unus alterum destruit, major scilicet minorem, consumendo materiam ejus; et similiter etiam ille ignis ignem qui apud nos est, consumere poterit. Ex Beda in eumdem locum, col. 82, t. 4.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.ad.2] The action of an accidental form depends upon the action of a substantial form in the same way as the being of accident depends upon the being of substance; and therefore, as it is an effect of Divine power that the sacramental species exist without substance, so is it an effect of Divine power that they can act without a substantial form, because every action of a substantial or accidental form depends upon God as the first agent.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod sicut operatio quæ procedit a virtute rei est virtutis indicium, ita et virtus ejus est indicium essentiæ vel naturæ, quæ procedit a principiis essentialibus rei; operatio autem quæ non procedit ex virtute rei operantis non indicat virtutem ipsius, sicut patet in instrumentis: actio enim instrumenti magis manifestat virtutem moventis quam instrumenti virtutem: quia virtutem agentis manifestat ut primum operationis principium; virtutem autem instrumenti non manifestat, nisi quatenus est susceptivum influentiæ principalis agentis, secundum quod movetur ab eo. Similiter etiam virtus quæ non procedit ex principiis essentialibus rei, non manifestat naturam ejus nisi quantum ad susceptibilitatem: sicut virtus qua aqua calefacta potest calefacere, non manifestat naturam ejus nisi quantum ad calefactibilatem; et ideo nihil prohibet quin aqua habens hanc virtutem, sit ejusdem speciei cum aqua non habente virtutem istam. Similiter etiam non est inconveniens quod ignis ille qui habebit vim purgandi faciem mundi, sit ejusdem speciei cum igne qui est apud nos, cum vis calefactiva non oriatur in ipso ex principiis essentialibus, sed ex divina virtute vel operatione; sive dicatur quod illa virtus sit aliqua qualitas absoluta, sicut calor in aqua calefacta; sive sit intensio quædam, sicut de instrumentali virtute in 1 dist. IV Sent., qu. 1, art. v, dictum est. Et hoc probabilius est, quia ignis ille non aget nisi ut instrumentum divinæ virtutis.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.ad.3] The change which terminates in a substantial form is not effected by a substantial form directly, but by means of the active and passive qualities, which act in virtue of the substantial form. But by Divine power this instrumental energy is retained in the sacramental species, just as it was before: and consequently their action can be directed to a substantial form instrumentally, just in the same way as anything can act outside its species, not as by its own power, but by the power of the chief agent.
\n[III.q.77.a.3.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ignis ex propria natura non fertur nisi sursum; sed inquantum sequitur materiam, quam requirit extra propriam sphæram existens, sic sequitur materiæ combustibilis situm: et per modum istum non est inconveniens, quod vel in circuitu vel deorsum moveatur, et præcipue secundum quod agit ut instrumentum divinæ virtutis.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.arg.1] It seems that the sacramental species cannot be corrupted, because corruption comes of the separation of the form from the matter. But the matter of the bread does not remain in this sacrament, as is clear from what was said above (Question 75, Article 2). Therefore these species cannot be corrupted.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.arg.1] Ad quartum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ignis ille purgabit etiam cælos superiores, quia in psal. c1, 26, dicitur: Opera manuum tuarum sunt cæli: ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes. Sed etiam superiores cæli sunt opera manuum Dei. Ergo et ipsi in finali illa mundi conflagratione peribunt.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.arg.2] Further, no form is corrupted except accidentally, that is, when its subject is corrupted; hence self-subsisting forms are incorruptible, as is seen in spiritual substances. But the sacramental species are forms without a subject. Therefore they cannot be corrupted.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.arg.2] 2. Præterea, II Petri, 111, 12, dicitur: Cæli ardentes solventur, et elementa ignis ardore tabescent. Cæli autem qui ab elementis distinguuntur, sunt cæli superiores, quibus infixa sunt sidera. Ergo videtur quod etiam illi per illum ignem purgabuntur.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.arg.3] Further, if they be corrupted, it will either be naturally or miraculously. But they cannot be corrupted naturally, because no subject of corruption can be assigned as remaining after the corruption has taken place. Neither can they be corrupted miraculously, because the miracles which occur in this sacrament take place in virtue of the consecration, whereby the sacramental species are preserved: and the same thing is not the cause of preservation and of corruption. Therefore, in no way can the sacramental species be corrupted.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ignis ille ad hoc erit ut removeat a corporibus indispositionem ad perfectionem gloriæ. Sed in cælo superiori inventur indispositio et ex parte culpæ, quia diabolus ibi peccavit, et ex parte naturalis defectus, quia Rom., v111, super illud: Scimus quod omnis creatura ingemiscit, et parturit usque adhuc, dicit Glossa 1 ord., col. 497, t. 2: « Omnia elementa cum labore explent officia sua; sicut sol et luna non sine labore statuta sibi implent spatia. » Ergo etiam cæli superiores purgabuntur per ignem illum.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.sc] We perceive by our senses that the consecrated hosts become putrefied and corrupted.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.sc] Sed contra est quod corpora cælestia peregrinæ impressionis receptiva non sunt. Præterea, Super illud II Thess., 1: In flamma ignis dantis vindictam, dicit Glossa 2: « Ignis erit in mundo, qui pracedet eum, tantum spatium aeris occupans, quantum occupavit aqua in diluvio. » Sed aqua diluvii non ascendit usque ad superiores cælos, sed solum quindecim cubitis super altitudinem montium, ut habetur Genes., vii. Ergo cæli superiores illo igne non purgabuntur.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.co] Corruption is \"movement from being into non-being\" (Aristotle, Phys. v). Now it has been stated (3) that the sacramental species retain the same being as they had before when the substance of the bread was present. Consequently, as the being of those accidents could be corrupted while the substance of the bread and wine was present, so likewise they can be corrupted now that the substance has passed away.
\nBut such accidents could have been previously corrupted in two ways: in one way, of themselves; in another way, accidentally. They could be corrupted of themselves, as by alteration of the qualities, and increase or decrease of the quantity, not in the way in which increase or decrease is found only in animated bodies, such as the substances of the bread and wine are not, but by addition or division; for, as is said in Metaph. iii, one dimension is dissolved by division, and two dimensions result; while on the contrary, by addition, two dimensions become one. And in this way such accidents can be corrupted manifestly after consecration, because the dimensive quantity which remains can receive division and addition; and since it is the subject of sensible qualities, as stated above (Article 1), it can likewise be the subject of their alteration, for instance, if the color or the savor of the bread or wine be altered.
\nAn accident can be corrupted in another way, through the corruption of its subject, and in this way also they can be corrupted after consecration; for although the subject does not remain, still the being which they had in the subject does remain, which being is proper, and suited to the subject. And therefore such being can be corrupted by a contrary agent, as the substance of the bread or wine was subject to corruption, and, moreover, was not corrupted except by a preceding alteration regarding the accidents.
\nNevertheless, a distinction must be made between each of the aforesaid corruptions; because, when the body and the blood of Christ succeed in this sacrament to the substance of the bread and wine, if there be such change on the part of the accidents as would not have sufficed for the corruption of the bread and wine, then the body and blood of Christ do not cease to be under this sacrament on account of such change, whether the change be on the part of the quality, as for instance, when the color or the savor of the bread or wine is slightly modified; or on the part of the quantity, as when the bread or the wine is divided into such parts as to keep in them the nature of bread or of wine. But if the change be so great that the substance of the bread or wine would have been corrupted, then Christ's body and blood do not remain under this sacrament; and this either on the part of the qualities, as when the color, savor, and other qualities of the bread and wine are so altered as to be incompatible with the nature of bread or of wine; or else on the part of the quantity, as, for instance, if the bread be reduced to fine particles, or the wine divided into such tiny drops that the species of bread or wine no longer remain.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod purgatio mundi ad hoc erit, ut removeatur a corporibus dispositio contraria perfectioni gloriæ; quae quidem perfectio est ultima rerum consummatio; et hæc quidem dispositio in omnibus corporibus inventur, sed diversimode in diversis. In quibusdam enim inventur indispositio secundum 4 Desumpta ex commentariis sub nomine Ambrosii falso vulgatis, col. 131, t. 4. aliquid inhærens substantiæ eorum, sicut in istis corporibus inferioribus, quæ per mutuam mixtionem decidunt a propria puritate: in quibusdam vero corporibus inventur dispositio non per aliquid substantiæ eorum inhærens, sicut in corporibus cælestibus, in quibus nihil inventur repugnans ultimæ perfectioni universi, nisi motus, qui est via ad perfectionem; nec motus quilibet, sed localis tantum, qui non variat aliquid quod sit intrinsecum rei, ut substantiam aut quantitatem aut qualitatem, sed solum locum, qui est extra rem. Et ideo a substantia cæli superioris non oportet quod aliquid removeatur, sed oportet quod motus ejus quietetur. Quietatio autem motus localis non fit per actionem alicujus contrarii agentis, sed per hoc quod motor desistit a movendo. Et ideo cælestia corpora nec per ignem nec per alicujus creaturæ actionem purgabuntur; sed ipsa eorum quietatio sola voluntate divina accidens, eis loco purgationis erit.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.ad.1] Since it belongs essentially to corruption to take away the being of a thing, in so far as the being of some form is in matter, it results that by corruption the form is separated from the matter. But if such being were not in matter, yet like such being as is in matter, it could be taken away by corruption, even where there is no matter; as takes place in this sacrament, as is evident from what was said above.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XX De civit. Dei, cap. xxiv, col. 696, t. 7, verba illa psalmi sunt intelligenda de cælis aereis, qui purgabuntur per ignem ultimæ conflagrationis. Vel dicendum, quod si etiam de superioribus cælis intelliguntur, tunc dicuntur perire quantum ad motum, quo nunc continue moventur.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.ad.2] Although the sacramental species are forms not in matter, yet they have the being which they had in matter.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod Petrus se exponit de quibus cælis intelligat: præmiserat enim ante verba inducta, quod cæli prius et terra per aquam perierant; qui nunc eodem verbo repositi sunt, igni reservati in diem judiciit. Ergo illi cæli per ignem purgabuntur qui prius per aquam diluvii sunt purgati, scilicet cæli aerei.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.ad.3] This corruption of species is not miraculous, but natural; nevertheless, it presupposes the miracle which is wrought in the consecration, namely, that those sacramental species retain without a subject, the same being as they had in a subject; just as a blind man, to whom sight is given miraculously, sees naturally.
\n[III.q.77.a.4.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ille labor et illa servitus creaturæ, quæ corporibus cælestibus secundum Ambrosium attribuitur, nihil est aliud quam vicissitudo motus, ratione cujus tempori subjiciuntur, et defectus ultimæ consummationis, quæ finaliter in eis erit. Ex culpa etiam dæmonum cælum empyreum infectionem non contraxit, quia peccando statim e cælo expulsi sunt.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.arg.1] It seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species: because, whatever is generated, is generated out of some matter: for nothing is generated out of nothing, although by creation something is made out of nothing. But there is no matter underlying the sacramental species except that of Christ's body, and that body is incorruptible. Therefore it seems that nothing can be generated from the sacramental species.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.arg.1] Ad quintum sic proceditur. 1. Videtur quod ignis ille alia elementa consumet, quia, ut dicit Glossa Bedæ ord., II Petri, ult., col. 694, t. 2, « elementa quatuor, quibus mundus consistit, ignis ille maximus absumet; nec cuncta in tantum absumet ut non sint; sed duo ex toto consumet, duo vero in meliorem restituet faciem. » Ergo videtur quod ad minus duo elementa per ignem illum destruenda sint totaliter.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.arg.2] Further, things which are not of the same genus cannot spring from one another: thus a line is not made of whiteness. But accident and substance differ generically. Therefore, since the sacramental species are accidents, it seems that no substance can be generated from them.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Apoc., xxi, 1, dicitur: Primum cælum et prima terra abiit, et mare jam non est. Sed per cælum aer intelligitur, ut Augustinus dicit, lib. XX De civ. Dei, cap. xviii, col. 684, t. 7: mare autem est aquarum congregatio. Ergo videtur quod illa tria elementa totaliter destruentur.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.arg.3] Further, if any corporeal substance be generated from them, such substance will not be without accident. Therefore, if any corporeal substance be generated from the sacramental species, then substance and accident would be generated from accident, namely, two things from one, which is impossible. Consequently, it is impossible for any corporeal substance to be generated out of the sacramental species.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.arg.3] 3. Præterea, ignis non purgat, nisi secundum hoc quod alia efficiuntur materia ejus. Si ergo ignis purgat alia elementa, oportet quod ejus materia efficiantur. Ergo oportet quod in naturam ignis transeant, et sic a natura sua corrumpentur.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.sc] The senses are witness that something is generated out of the sacramental species, either ashes, if they be burned, worms if they putrefy, or dust if they be crushed.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.sc] Sed contra est quod I Cor., viii, super illud: Præterit figura hujus mundi, Glossa dicit: « Hujus mundi pulchritudo, non substantia, præterit. » Sed ipsa substantia elementorum pertinet ad perfectionem mundi. Ergo elementa non consumentur secundum suam substantiam. Præterea, illa finalis purgatio quæ fiet per ignem, respondebit primæ purgationi quæ facta est per aquam. Sed illa non corrupit elementorum substantiam. Ergo nec illa quæ fiet per ignem, corrumpet.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.co] Since \"the corruption of one thing is the generation of another\" (De Gener. i), something must be generated necessarily from the sacramental species if they be corrupted, as stated above (Article 4); for they are not corrupted in such a way that they disappear altogether, as if reduced to nothing; on the contrary, something sensible manifestly succeeds to them.
\nNevertheless, it is difficult to see how anything can be generated from them. For it is quite evident that nothing is generated out of the body and blood of Christ which are truly there, because these are incorruptible. But if the substance, or even the matter, of the bread and wine were to remain in this sacrament, then, as some have maintained, it would be easy to account for this sensible object which succeeds to them. But that supposition is false, as was stated above (75, 2,4,8).
\nHence it is that others have said that the things generated have not sprung from the sacramental species, but from the surrounding atmosphere. But this can be shown in many ways to be impossible. In the first place, because when a thing is generated from another, the latter at first appears changed and corrupted; whereas no alteration or corruption appeared previously in the adjacent atmosphere; hence the worms or ashes are not generated therefrom. Secondly, because the nature of the atmosphere is not such as to permit of such things being generated by such alterations. Thirdly, because it is possible for many consecrated hosts to be burned or putrefied; nor would it be possible for an earthen body, large enough to be generated from the atmosphere, unless a great and, in fact, exceedingly sensible condensation of the atmosphere took place. Fourthly, because the same thing can happen to the solid bodies surrounding them, such as iron or stone, which remain entire after the generation of the aforesaid things. Hence this opinion cannot stand, because it is opposed to what is manifest to our senses.
\nAnd therefore others have said that the substance of the bread and wine returns during the corruption of the species, and so from the returning substance of the bread and wine, ashes or worms or something of the kind are generated. But this explanation seems an impossible one. First of all, because if the substance of the bread and wine be converted into the body and blood of Christ, as was shown above (75, 2,4), the substance of the bread and wine cannot return, except the body and blood of Christ be again changed back into the substance of bread and wine, which is impossible: thus if air be turned into fire, the air cannot return without the fire being again changed into air. But if the substance of bread or wine be annihilated, it cannot return again, because what lapses into nothing does not return numerically the same. Unless perchance it be said that the said substance returns, because God creates anew another new substance to replace the first. Secondly, this seems to be impossible, because no time can be assigned when the substance of the bread returns. For, from what was said above (4; 76, 6, ad 3), it is evident that while the species of the bread and wine remain, there remain also the body and blood of Christ, which are not present together with the substance of the bread and wine in this sacrament, according to what was stated above (Question 75, Article 2). Hence the substance of the bread and wine cannot return while the sacramental species remain; nor, again, when these species pass away; because then the substance of the bread and wine would be without their proper accidents, which is impossible. Unless perchance it be said that in the last instant of the corruption of the species there returns (not, indeed, the substance of bread and wine, because it is in that very instant that they have the being of the substance generated from the species, but) the matter of the bread and wine; which, matter, properly speaking, would be more correctly described as created anew, than as returning. And in this sense the aforesaid position might be held.
\nHowever, since it does not seem reasonable to say that anything takes place miraculously in this sacrament, except in virtue of the consecration itself, which does not imply either creation or return of matter, it seems better to say that in the actual consecration it is miraculously bestowed on the dimensive quantity of the bread and wine to be the subject of subsequent forms. Now this is proper to matter; and therefore as a consequence everything which goes with matter is bestowed on dimensive quantity; and therefore everything which could be generated from the matter of bread or wine, if it were present, can be generated from the aforesaid dimensive quantity of the bread or wine, not, indeed, by a new miracle, but by virtue of the miracle which has already taken place.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod circa hanc quæstionem est multiplex opinio. Quidam enim dicunt quod omnia elementa 2 Ex commentariis sub nomine Ambrosii vulgatis, col. 235, t. 4. manebunt quantum ad materiam, omnia autem mutabuntur quantum ad imperfectionem; sed duo eorum retinebunt propriam formam substantialem, scilicet aer et terra; in duobus vero, scilicet igne et aqua, non remanebit forma substantialis eorum, sed mutabuntur ad formam cæli: et sic tria elementa, aer scilicet, ignis et aqua, cælum dicentur; quamvis aer retineat formam substantialem eamdem quam nunc habet, quia nunc etiam cælum dicitur. Unde etiam Apoc., xxI, 1, non fit mentio nisi de cælo et terra: Vidi, inquit, cælum novum et terram novam. Sed hæc opinio est omnino absurda. Repugnat enim et philosophiæ, secundum quam poni non potest quod corpora inferiora sint in potentia ad formam cæli, cum nec materiam habeant communem nec contrarietatem ad invicem; et etiam theologiæ, quia secundum hanc positionem non salvabitur perfectio universi cum integritate suarum partium, duobus elementis sublatis. Unde per hoc quod dicitur cælum, intelligitur quintum corpus: omnia vero elementa intelliguntur per terram, sicut in psal. cxLVIII, 7: Laudate Dominum de terra; et sequitur: Ignis, grando, nix, glacies, etc. Et ideo alii dicunt, quod omnia elementa manebunt secundum substantiam, sed qualitates activæ et passivæ ab eis removebuntur: sicut etiam ponunt quod in corpore mixto elementa salvantur secundum suas formas substantiales sine hoc quod proprias qualitates habeant, cum sint ad medium reductæ; medium autem neutrum extremorum est. Et huic etiam videtur consonare quod Augustinus dicit XX De civit. Dei, cap. xvi, col. 682, t. 7: « Illa itaque conflagratione mundana elementorum corruptibilium qualitates, quæ corporibus nostris corruptibilibus congruebant, ardendo penitus interibunt; atque ipsa substantia eas qualitates habebit, quæ corporibus immortalibus mirabili mutatione conveniunt. » Sed istud non videtur probabile: quia, cum qualitates propriæ elementorum sint effectus formarum substantialium, non videtur quod, formis substantialibus manentibus, qualitates prædictæ possint mutari, nisi per actionem violentam ad tempus, sicut in aqua calefacta videmus quod ex vi suæ speciei frigiditatem recuperat, quam per actionem ignis amisit, dummodo species aquæ remaneat. Et præterea, ipsæ qualitates elementares sunt de perfectione secunda elementorum sicut propriæ passiones eorum: nec est probabile quod in illa finali consummatione aliquid perfectionis naturalis ab elementis tollatur. Et ideo videtur dicendum, quod manebunt elementa quantum ad substantiam et qualitates eorum proprias; sed purgabuntur ab infectione quam ex peccatis hominum contraxerunt, et ab impuritate quæ per actionem et passionem mutuam in eis accidit, quia jam cessante motu primi mobilis, in inferioribus elementis mutua actio et passio esse non poterit: et hoc Augustinus, loc. cit., appellat « qualitates corruptibilium elementorum, » scilicet innaturales dispositiones eorum secundum quas corruptioni appropinquant.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.ad.1] Although no matter is there out of which a thing may be generated, nevertheless dimensive quantity supplies the place of matter, as stated above.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod ignis ille dicitur quatuor elementa absumere, inquantum ea aliquo modo purgabit. Quod autem sequitur, quod « duo ex toto consumet, » non est intelligendum quod duo elementa secundum substantiam destruantur, sed quia duo magis removebuntur a proprietate quam nunc habent. Quæ quidem duo a quibusdam esse dicitur ignis et aqua quæ maxime excedunt in quantitatibus activis, scilicet calore et frigore, quæ sunt maxime corruptionis principia in aliis corporibus: et quia tunc non erit actio ignis et aquæ, quæ sunt maxime activa, maxime immutari videbuntur a virtute quam nunc habent. Alii vero dicunt hæc duo esse aerem et aquam, propter varios motus istorum duorum elementorum, quos consequuntur ex motu corporum cælestium; et quia isti motus non erunt, sicut fluxus, et refluxus maris, et commotiones ventorum, et hujusmodi, ideo illa elementa maxime mutabuntur a proprietate quam nunc habent.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.ad.2] Those sacramental species are indeed accidents, yet they have the act and power of substance, as stated above (Article 3).
\n[III.q.77.a.5.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod, sicut dicit Augustinus, XX De civit. Dei. cap. xvi, col. 682, t. 7, cum dicitur: Et mare jam non est, per mare potest intelligi præsens sæculum, de quo ante dixerat: Mare dedit mortuos qui in eo erant. Si tamen mare ad litteram referamus, tunc est dicendum quod in mari duo intelliguntur, scilicet substantia aquarum, et earum dispositio quantum ad salsedinem et commotiones fluctuum; et quantum ad hoc secundum, mare non remanebit; remanebit autem quantum ad primum.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.ad.3] The dimensive quantity of the bread and wine retains its own nature, and receives miraculously the power and property of substance; and therefore it can pass to both, that is, into substance and dimension.
\n[III.q.77.a.5.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod ignis ille non aget nisi ut instrumentum providentia et virtutis divinæ: unde non aget in alia elementa usque ad eorum consumptionem sed solum usque ad purgationem. Nec oportet quod illud quod efficitur materia ignis, totaliter a specie propria corrumpatur; sicut patet in ferro ignito, quod a loco ignitionis remotum ex virtute speciei remanentis ad proprium statum et pristinum redit; et ita etiam erit de elementis per ignem purgatis.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.arg.1] It seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish, because, as Ambrose says (De Sacram. v), \"it is not this bread that enters into our body, but the bread of everlasting life, which supports the substance of our soul.\" But whatever nourishes enters into the body. Therefore this bread does not nourish: and the same reason holds good of the wine.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.arg.1] Ad sextum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod nec omnia elementa per illum ignem purgabuntur, quia ignis ille, ut jam dictum est, non ascendet nisi quantum ascendit aqua diluvii. Sed aqua diluvii non pervenit usque ad sphæram ignis. Ergo nec per ultimam purgationem elementum ignis purgabitur.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.arg.2] Further, as is said in De Gener. ii, \"We are nourished by the very things of which we are made.\" But the sacramental species are accidents, whereas man is not made of accidents, because accident is not a part of substance. Therefore it seems that the sacramental species cannot nourish.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Apoc., xxI, super illud: Vidi cælum novum, etc., dicit Glossa: « Immutatio aeris et terræ dubitabile non est quin per ignem fiet; sed de aqua dubitatur, nam purgationem in seipsa habere creditur. » Ergo ad minus non est certum quod omnia elementa purgabuntur.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.arg.3] Further, the Philosopher says (De Anima ii) that \"food nourishes according as it is a substance, but it gives increase by reason of its quantity.\" But the sacramental species are not a substance. Consequently they cannot nourish.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.arg.3] 3. Præterea, locus qui est perpetuæ infectionis, nunquam purgatur. Sed in inferno erit perpetua infectio. Cum ergo infernus inter elementa collocetur, videtur quod elementa non totaliter purgabuntur.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.sc] The Apostle speaking of this sacrament says (1 Corinthians 11:21): \"One, indeed, is hungry, and another is drunk\": upon which the gloss observes that \"he alludes to those who after the celebration of the sacred mystery, and after the consecration of the bread and wine, claimed their oblations, and not sharing them with others, took the whole, so as even to become intoxicated thereby.\" But this could not happen if the sacramental species did not nourish. Therefore the sacramental species do nourish.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.sc] Sed contra est Glossa super inducta quæ habetur II Petri, ult., col. 694, t. 2, quod quatuor elementa ignis ille absumet.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.co] This question presents no difficulty, now that we have solved the preceding question. Because, as stated in De Anima ii, food nourishes by being converted into the substance of the individual nourished. Now it has been stated (5) that the sacramental species can be converted into a substance generated from them. And they can be converted into the human body for the same reason as they can into ashes or worms. Consequently, it is evident that they nourish.
\nBut the senses witness to the untruth of what some maintain; viz. that the species do not nourish as though they were changed into the human body, but merely refresh and hearten by acting upon the senses (as a man is heartened by the odor of meat, and intoxicated by the fumes of wine). Because such refreshment does not suffice long for a man, whose body needs repair owing to constant waste: and yet a man could be supported for long if he were to take hosts and consecrated wine in great quantity.
\nIn like manner the statement advanced by others cannot stand, who hold that the sacramental species nourish owing to the remaining substantial form of the bread and wine: both because the form does not remain, as stated above (Question 75, Article 6): and because to nourish is the act not of a form but rather of matter, which takes the form of the one nourished, while the form of the nourishment passes away: hence it is said in De Anima ii that nourishment is at first unlike, but at the end is like.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod quidam dicunt quod ille ignis ascendet usque ad summitatem spatii continentis quatuor elementa; ut sic elementa totaliter purgentur et ab infectione peccati, quo etiam superiores partes elementorum sunt infectæ, ut patet per fumum idololatriæ superiora inficientis, et etiam a corruptione, quia elementa secundum omnes partes sui corruptibilia sunt. Sed hæc opinio repugnat auctoritati Scripturæ, quia II Petri, III, dicitur quod illi cæli repositi sunt igni, qui fuerunt per aquam purgati: et Augustinus dicit, XX De civit. Dei, cap. xviii, col. 684, t. 7, quod « ille mundus qui diluvio periit, igni reservatur. » Constat autem quod aqua diluvii non ascendit usque ad summitatem spatii elementorum, sed solum usque ad quindecim cubitos super altitudines montium. Et præterea notum est quod vapores elevati a terra, vel fumi quicumque, non possunt pertransire totam sphæram ignis, ut perveniant ad summitatem ejus. Et ita infectio peccati non pervenit usque ad spatium prædictum. A corruptibilitate etiam elementa non possunt purgari per subtractionem alicujus quod per ignem possit consumi; sed per ignem poterunt consumi impuritates elementorum, quæ ex eorum permixtione provenient. Hujsmodi autem impuritates præcipue sunt circa terram usque ad medium aeris interstitium. Unde usque ad illud spatium ignis ultima conflagrationis elementa purgabit. Tantum enim aquæ diluvii ascenderunt, quod probabiliter æstimari potest ex montium altitudine, quos determinata mensura transcenderant. Primum ergo concedimus.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.ad.1] After the consecration bread can be said to be in this sacrament in two ways. First, as to the species, which retain the name of the previous substance, as Gregory says in an Easter Homily (Lanfranc, De Corp. et Sang. Dom. xx). Secondly, Christ's very body can be called bread, since it is the mystical bread \"coming down from heaven.\" Consequently, Ambrose uses the word \"bread\" in this second meaning, when he says that \"this bread does not pass into the body,\" because, to wit, Christ's body is not changed into man's body, but nourishes his soul. But he is not speaking of bread taken in the first acceptation.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.ad.2] Although the sacramental species are not those things out of which the human body is made, yet they are changed into those things stated above.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod ratio dubitationis in Glossa exprimitur, quia scilicet aqua vim purgationis in se habere creditur: non tamen habet vim purgationis talis, qualis futuro statui competit, ut ex dictis patet.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.ad.3] Although the sacramental species are not a substance, still they have the virtue of a substance, as stated above.
\n[III.q.77.a.6.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod illa purgatio præcipue ad hoc erit ut quidquid est imperfectionis, a sanctorum habitatione removeatur. Et ideo in illa purgatione totum quod est fædum, ad locum damnatorum congregabitur. Unde infernus non purgabitur, sed ad ipsum deducentur totius mundi purgamenta.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.arg.1] It seems that the sacramental species are not broken in this sacrament, because the Philosopher says in Meteor. iv that bodies are breakable owing to a certain disposition of the pores; a thing which cannot be attributed to the sacramental species. Therefore the sacramental species cannot be broken.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.arg.2] Further, breaking is followed by sound. But the sacramental species emit no sound: because the Philosopher says (De Anima ii), that what emits sound is a hard body, having a smooth surface. Therefore the sacramental species are not broken.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.arg.2] 2. Præterea, Augustinus dicit in eodem lib., c. xvi, col. 682, t. 7: « Judicatis impiis et in æternum ignem missis, figura hujus mundi mundanorum ignium conflagratione præteribit. » Ergo idem quod prius.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.arg.3] Further, breaking and mastication are seemingly of the same object. But it is Christ's true body that is eaten, according to John 6:57: \"He that eateth My flesh, and drinketh My blood.\" Therefore it is Christ's body that is broken and masticated: and hence it is said in the confession of Berengarius: \"I agree with the Holy Catholic Church, and with heart and lips I profess, that the bread and wine which are placed on the altar, are the true body and blood of Christ after consecration, and are truly handled and broken by the priest's hands, broken and crushed by the teeth of believers.\" Consequently, the breaking ought not to be ascribed to the sacramental species.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.arg.3] 3. Præterea, Dominus ad judicandum veniens aliquos vivos reperiet, ut patet ex hoc quod habetur I Thess., iv, 14, ubi ex persona eorum Apostolus dicit: Deinde nos qui vivimus, qui residui sumus in adventum Domini, etc. Sed hoc non esset, si conflagratio mundi præcederet, quia per ignem dissolverentur. Ergo ignis ille judicium sequetur.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.sc] Breaking arises from the division of that which has quantity. But nothing having quantity except the sacramental species is broken here, because neither Christ's body is broken, as being incorruptible, nor is the substance of the bread, because it no longer remains. Therefore the sacramental species are broken.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.sc] Sed contra est quod dicitur in ps. xcvi, 3: Ignis ante ipsum præcedet. Præterea, resurrection præcedet judicium; alias non videret omnis oculus Christum judicantem. Sed mundi conflagratio resurrectionem præcedet; sancti enim qui resurgent, corpora spiritualia et impassibilia habebunt; et ita non poterunt purgari per ignem; cum tamen in Littera, IV, dist. xlvii, dicatur ex verbis Augustini, lib. XX De civ. Dei, cap. xxv, col. 700, t. 7, quod per illum ignem purgabitur, si quid in aliquibus sit purganum. Ergo ille ignis judicium præcedet.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.co] Many opinions prevailed of old on this matter. Some held that in this sacrament there was no breaking at all in reality, but merely in the eyes of the beholders. But this contention cannot stand, because in this sacrament of truth the sense is not deceived with regard to its proper object of judgment, and one of these objects is breaking, whereby from one thing arise many: and these are common sensibles, as is stated in De Anima ii.
\nOthers accordingly have said that there was indeed a genuine breaking, but without any subject. But this again contradicts our senses; because a quantitative body is seen in this sacrament, which formerly was one, and is now divided into many, and this must be the subject of the breaking.
\nBut it cannot be said that Christ's true body is broken. First of all, because it is incorruptible and impassible: secondly, because it is entire under every part, as was shown above (Question 76, Article 3), which is contrary to the nature of a thing broken.
\nIt remains, then, that the breaking is in the dimensive quantity of the bread, as in a subject, just as the other accidents. And as the sacramental species are the sacrament of Christ's true body, so is the breaking of these species the sacrament of our Lord's Passion, which was in Christ's true body.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod illa conflagratio secundum rei veritatem quantum ad sui initium judicium præcedet, quod ex hoc manifeste colligi potest, quod mortuorum resurrectionio judicium præcedit: quod patet I Thess., iv, ubi dicitur quod illi qui dormierunt, rapientur in nubibus in aera obviam Christo ad judicium venienti. Simul autem erit resurrection communis, et corporum sanctorum glorificatio. Sancti enim resurgentes corpora gloriosa resument, ut patet per illud quod dicitur I Cor., xv, 43: Seminatur in ignobilitate, surget in gloria. Simul autem cum corpora sanctorum glorificabuntur, etiam tota creatura suo modo renovabitur, ut patet per illud quod dicitur ad Rom., viii, 21, quod ipsa creatura liberabitur a servitute corruptionis in libertatem gloriæ filiorum Dei. Cum ergo conflagratio mundi sit dispositio ad renovationem prædictam, ut ex dictis patet, manifeste potest colligi quod ista conflagratio quoad purgationem mundi judicium præcedet; sed quoad aliquem actum, qui scilicet est involvere malos, judicium sequetur.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.ad.1] As rarity and density remain under the sacramental species, as stated above (2, ad 3), so likewise porousness remains, and in consequence breakableness.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod Augustinus non loquitur determinando, sed opinando: quod patet ex hoc quod sequitur: « Quæ omnia quidem ventura esse credendum est; sed quibus modis et quo ordine veniant, magis tunc docebit reum experientia, quam nunc ad perfect- Ergo patet quod hæc dicit opinando. Et similiter dicendum est ad secundum.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.ad.2] Hardness results from density; therefore, as density remains under the sacramental species, hardness remains there too, and the capability of sound as a consequence.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.ad.3] What is eaten under its own species, is also broken and masticated under its own species; but Christ's body is eaten not under its proper, but under the sacramental species. Hence in explaining John 6:64, \"The flesh profiteth nothing,\" Augustine (Tract. xxvii in Joan.) says that this is to be taken as referring to those who understood carnally: \"for they understood the flesh, thus, as it is divided piecemeal, in a dead body, or as sold in the shambles.\" Consequently, Christ's very body is not broken, except according to its sacramental species. And the confession made by Berengarius is to be understood in this sense, that the breaking and the crushing with the teeth is to be referred to the sacramental species, under which the body of Christ truly is.
\n[III.q.77.a.7.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod omnes homines morientur, et resurgent; sed tamen illi dicuntur vivi reperiri qui usque ad tempus conflagrationis vivent in corpore.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.1] It seems that no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine, because everything mingled with another partakes of its quality. But no liquid can share in the quality of the sacramental species, because those accidents are without a subject, as stated above (Article 1). Therefore it seems that no liquid can be mingled with the sacramental species of the wine.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.1] Ad octavum sic proceditur. 4. Videtur quod ille ignis non habebit talem effectum in hominibus, qualis in Littera designatur, IV, dist. xlvii. Illud enim consumi dicitur quod in nihilum reducitur. Sed corpora impiorum non solventur in nihilum, sed in æternum conservabuntur ut æternam pœnam sustineant. Ergo ignis ille non erit malis consumptio, ut in Littera dicitur.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.2] Further, if any kind of liquid be mixed with those species, then some one thing must be the result. But no one thing can result from the liquid, which is a substance, and the sacramental species, which are accidents; nor from the liquid and Christ's blood, which owing to its incorruptibility suffers neither increase nor decrease. Therefore no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.2] 2. Præterea, si dicatur quod consumet malorum corpora, inquantum ea resolvet in cinerem, contra: Sicut corpora malorum, ita et bonorum in cinerem resolventur; hoc enim est Christi solius privilegium, ut caro ejus non videat corruptionem, psal. xv, et Act. 11. Ergo etiam bonis tunc repertis erit consumptio.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.3] Further, if any liquid be mixed with the consecrated wine, then that also would appear to be consecrated; just as water added to holy-water becomes holy. But the consecrated wine is truly Christ's blood. Therefore the liquid added would likewise be Christ's blood otherwise than by consecration, which is unbecoming. Therefore no liquid can be mingled with the consecrated wine.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.3] 3. Præterea, infectio peccati magis abundat in elementis, secundum quod veniunt ad compositionem humani corporis, in quo est corruptio fomitis, etiam quantum ad bonos, quam in elementis extra corpus humanum existentibus. Sed elementa extra corpus humanum existentia purgabuntur propter peccati infectionem. Ergo multo fortius oportet per ignem purgari elementa in corporibus humanis existentia, sive bonorum sive malorum; et ita oportet utrorumque corpora resolvi.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.4] Further, if one of two things be entirely corrupted, there is no mixture (De Gener. i). But if we mix any liquid, it seems that the entire species of the sacramental wine is corrupted, so that the blood of Christ ceases to be beneath it; both because great and little are difference of quantity, and alter it, as white and black cause a difference of color; and because the liquid mixed, as having no obstacle, seems to permeate the whole, and so Christ's blood ceases to be there, since it is not there with any other substance. Consequently, no liquid can be mixed with the consecrated wine.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.arg.4] 4. Præterea, quamdiu status viæ durat, elementa similiter agunt in bonos et in malos. Sed adhuc durabit status hujus viæ in illa conflagratione, quia post statum hujus viæ non erit mors naturalis, quæ tamen per illam conflagrationem causabitur. Ergo ille ignis æqualiter aget in bonos et in malos; et ita non videtur quod sit aliqua discretio inter eos quantum ad effectum illius ignis suscipiendum, sicut in Littera ponitur, loc. cit.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.sc] It is evident to our senses that another liquid can be mixed with the wine after it is consecrated, just as before.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.co] The truth of this question is evident from what has been said already. For it was said above (3; 5, ad 2) that the species remaining in this sacrament, as they acquire the manner of being of substance in virtue of the consecration, so likewise do they obtain the mode of acting and of being acted upon, so that they can do or receive whatever their substance could do or receive, were it there present. But it is evident that if the substance of wine were there present, then some other liquid could be mingled with it.
\nNevertheless there would be a different effect of such mixing both according to the form and according to the quantity of the liquid. For if sufficient liquid were mixed so as to spread itself all through the wine, then the whole would be a mixed substance. Now what is made up of things mixed is neither of them, but each passes into a third resulting from both: hence it would result that the former wine would remain no longer. But if the liquid added were of another species, for instance, if water were mixed, the species of the wine would be dissolved, and there would be a liquid of another species. But if liquid of the same species were added, of instance, wine with wine, the same species would remain, but the wine would not be the same numerically, as the diversity of the accidents shows: for instance, if one wine were white and the other red.
\nBut if the liquid added were of such minute quantity that it could not permeate the whole, the entire wine would not be mixed, but only part of it, which would not remain the same numerically owing to the blending of extraneous matter: still it would remain the same specifically, not only if a little liquid of the same species were mixed with it, but even if it were of another species, since a drop of water blended with much wine passes into the species of wine (De Gener. i).
\nNow it is evident that the body and blood of Christ abide in this sacrament so long as the species remain numerically the same, as stated above (4; 76, 6, ad 3); because it is this bread and this wine which is consecrated. Hence, if the liquid of any kind whatsoever added be so much in quantity as to permeate the whole of the consecrated wine, and be mixed with it throughout, the result would be something numerically distinct, and the blood of Christ will remain there no longer. But if the quantity of the liquid added be so slight as not to permeate throughout, but to reach only a part of the species, Christ's blood will cease to be under that part of the consecrated wine, yet will remain under the rest.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.co] Respondeo dicendum, quod ignis ille finalis conflagrationis quantum ad hoc quod judicium præcedet, aget ut instrumentum divinæ justitiæ, et iterum per virtutem naturalem ignis. Quantum ergo pertinet ad virtutem naturalem ipsius, similiter aget in malos et bonos qui vivi reperientur, utrorumque corpora in cinerem resolvendo; inquantum vero aget ut instrumentum divinæ justitiæ, diversimode aget in diversos quantum ad sensum pœnæ. Mali enim per actionem ignis cruciabuntur; boni vero, in quibus nihil purgandum inventur, omnino nullum dolorem ex igne sentient, sicut nec pueri senserunt in camino ignis, Dan., 111. Quamvis eorum corpora non servabuntur integra, sicut puerorum servata fuerunt; et hoc divina virtute fieri poterit, ut sine doloris cruciatu resolutionem corporum patiantur. Boni vero in quibus aliquid purgandum reperietur, sentient cruciatum doloris ex illo igne, plus vel minus, pro meritorum diversitate. Sed quantum ad actum quem post judicium ille ignis habebit, in damnatos tantum aget, quia boni omnes habebunt corpora impassibilia.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.1] Pope Innocent III in a Decretal writes thus: \"The very accidents appear to affect the wine that is added, because, if water is added, it takes the savor of the wine. The result is, then, that the accidents change the subject, just as subject changes accidents; for nature yields to miracle, and power works beyond custom.\" But this must not be understood as if the same identical accident, which was in the wine previous to consecration, is afterwards in the wine that is added; but such change is the result of action; because the remaining accidents of the wine retain the action of substance, as stated above, and so they act upon the liquid added, by changing it.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.1] Ad primum ergo dicendum, quod consumptio ibi accipitur non pro annihilatione, sed pro resolutione in cineres.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.2] The liquid added to the consecrated wine is in no way mixed with the substance of Christ's blood. Nevertheless it is mixed with the sacramental species, yet so that after such mixing the aforesaid species are corrupted entirely or in part, after the way mentioned above (Article 5), whereby something can be generated from those species. And if they be entirely corrupted, there remains no further question, because the whole will be uniform. But if they be corrupted in part, there will be one dimension according to the continuity of quantity, but not one according to the mode of being, because one part thereof will be without a subject while the other is in a subject; as in a body that is made up of two metals, there will be one body quantitatively, but not one as to the species of the matter.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.2] Ad secundum dicendum, quod bonorum corpora, quamvis in cinerem resolventur per ignem, non tamen ex hoc dolorem sentient, sicut nec pueri in fornace Babylonica existentes; et quantum ad hoc, est dissimile de bonis et malis.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.3] As Pope Innocent says in the aforesaid Decretal, \"if after the consecration other wine be put in the chalice, it is not changed into the blood, nor is it mingled with the blood, but, mixed with the accidents of the previous wine, it is diffused throughout the body which underlies them, yet without wetting what surrounds it.\" Now this is to be understood when there is not sufficient mixing of extraneous liquid to cause the blood of Christ to cease to be under the whole; because a thing is said to be \"diffused throughout,\" not because it touches the body of Christ according to its proper dimensions, but according to the sacramental dimensions, under which it is contained. Now it is not the same with holy water, because the blessing works no change in the substance of the water, as the consecration of the wine does.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.3] Ad tertium dicendum, quod elementa in corporibus humanis existentia purgabuntur per ignem etiam in corporibus electorum: sed hoc per divinam virtutem fiet sine cruciatu doloris.
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.4] Some have held that however slight be the mixing of extraneous liquid, the substance of Christ's blood ceases to be under the whole, and for the reason given above (Objection 4); which, however, is not a cogent one; because \"more\" or \"less\" diversify dimensive quantity, not as to its essence, but as to the determination of its measure. In like manner the liquid added can be so small as on that account to be hindered from permeating the whole, and not simply by the dimensions; which, although they are present without a subject, still they are opposed to another liquid, just as substance would be if it were present, according to what was said at the beginning of the article.
\nThe Summa Theologica of St. Thomas AquinasSecond and Revised Edition, 1920Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican ProvinceOnline Edition Copyright © 2009 by Kevin Knight Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.APPROBATIO ORDINISNihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis AngliæMARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ
\n[III.q.77.a.8.ad.4] Ad quartum dicendum, quod ignis ille non aget tantum secundum naturalem elementi virtutem, sed etiam ut divinæ justitiae instrumentum.
\n