title: Dist. 10, Part 1, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Divisio textus et tractatio quaestionum (Pars I)

title_alt: Division of the text and treatment of the questions (Part I)

source_text:
<!-- page 215 -->

### COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM X.

#### Pars I.

*Solvuntur sophisticae rationes haereticorum, qui negant, corpus Christi esse in altari.*

> Sunt item alii praecedentium insaniam transcendentes.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra ostendit Magister, corpus Christi verum sumi. In hac parte ostendit, corpus Christi verum esse in altari, procedens a destructione minoris erroris ad destructionem maioris. Et dividitur haec pars in duas partes. In prima Magister respondet sophisticis rationibus illorum qui dicebant, corpus

<!-- page 216 -->

Christi verum in altari non esse. In secunda veritatem confirmat multiplici auctoritate ostendens, quod corpus[^1] verum est in altari, et qua virtute hoc fiat, ibi: *Satis responsum arbitror esse haereticis.*

Prima pars habet duas. In prima ponit auctoritates et rationes. In secunda subiungit expositiones et determinationes, ibi: *Quae ex eadem ratione* omnia accipienda sunt. Et illa similiter duas habet. In prima exponit et determinat quasdam auctoritates, quas illi male intelligendo depravabant[^2]. In secunda vero quasi incidenter exponit quandam locutionem tropicam Augustini, quae posset alicui ministrare fomentum erroris, ibi: *Attende his diligenter, quia tropo quodam* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis quaeruntur quinque.

Primo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum veritatem.

Secundo, utrum sit ibi secundum quantitatem.

Tertio, utrum sit ibi definitive.

Quarto, utrum dimensive.

Quinto, utrum totum sit in qualibet parte hostiae.

### ARTICULUS UNICUS.

#### *De veritate et modo praesentiae Christi in Sacramento altaris.*

---

english:
<!-- page 215 -->

### COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION X.

#### Part I.

*The sophistical reasons of the heretics, who deny that the body of Christ is on the altar, are resolved.*

> There are likewise others who surpass the madness of those preceding.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master showed that the true body of Christ is received. In this part he shows that the true body of Christ is on the altar, proceeding from the refutation of the lesser error to the refutation of the greater. And this part is divided into two parts. In the first the Master replies to the sophistical reasons of those who said that the body of

<!-- page 216 -->

Christ is not truly on the altar. In the second he confirms the truth by manifold authority, showing that the body[^1] is truly on the altar, and by what power this comes about, there: *I think a sufficient answer has been given to the heretics.*

The first part has two [subdivisions]. In the first he sets down authorities and reasons. In the second he subjoins expositions and determinations, there: *Which from the same reasoning* are all to be received. And that [part] likewise has two. In the first he expounds and determines certain authorities, which they, understanding them badly, were distorting[^2]. In the second, however, as it were incidentally, he expounds a certain tropical expression of Augustine, which might furnish someone with fuel for error, there: *Attend to these things diligently, because by a certain trope* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part five [things] are asked.

First it is asked, whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to truth.

Second, whether it is there according to quantity.

Third, whether it is there definitively.

Fourth, whether dimensively.

Fifth, whether it is whole in each part of the host.

### SINGLE ARTICLE.

#### *On the truth and mode of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar.*

---

la: Codd. G H M U Z *corpus Christi.*

en: Codices G H M U Z read *the body of Christ.*

la: Plurimi codd. male *damnabant.*

en: Very many codices wrongly [read] *were condemning.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 24313–24363 (COMMENTARIUS/Pars-I header through the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener), with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p215-{L,R}-*.png`, `vol4-p216-{L,R}-*.png`) authoritative in the two-column cascade-fragmented regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20. QUAESTIO I (raw L24364+) excluded; it opens the next chunk `d10-p1-a1-q1`.
- **Structure confirmed:** Distinction X (*De veritate corporis Christi*) is a **two-pars** distinction; this chunk carries `p1`. Pars I has a single **ARTICULUS UNICUS** (*De veritate et modo praesentiae Christi in Sacramento altaris*) holding **five questions**: q1 *secundum veritatem*, q2 *secundum quantitatem*, q3 *definitive*, q4 *dimensive*, q5 *totum in qualibet parte hostiae* — all five confirmed verbatim in the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM on p.216 (left col q1–q2, right col q3–q5). The chunk ends at the ARTICULUS UNICUS title; per project convention the article's short opener folds into q1, but here the article opener is only its heading + sub-title, both shown.
- **Page-split map:** p.215 carries the COMMENTARIUS title, *Pars I* subtitle/argumentum, and the DIVISIO TEXTUS opening (through "...sophisticis rationibus illorum qui dicebant, corpus"). p.216 carries the DIVISIO continuation, the full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and the ARTICULUS UNICUS opener. Page break placed at the column-bottom of p.215 ("...qui dicebant, corpus" | "Christi verum in altari non esse...").
- **Footer ownership:** p.215's footers (notes 1–6) belong entirely to the preceding **littera** chunk (Cap. I–II of Lombard, raw L24048–24312) — none anchor in this divisio body. p.216 carries **9 footers**; only notes **1** (`Codd. G H M U Z corpus Christi`) and **2** (`Plurimi codd. male damnabant`) anchor in this DIVISIO body (`corpus`¹, `depravabant`²) and are claimed here. p.216 notes **3–9** anchor in the QUAESTIO I *Fundamenta* (`Hoc est corpus meum`³ etc.) and are **left to `d10-p1-a1-q1`**.
- **No `[?]` flags** — all body text and the two owned footers read cleanly from the PDF bands.
- No scholion in this divisio chunk.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 10, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem X, Pars II — De conversione et virtute transsubstantiandi

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction X, Part II — On the conversion and the power of transubstantiating

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 227 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem X
### Pars II.

*Veritas fidei, quod corpus Christi vere est in altari, confirmatur.*

**Satis responsum est haereticis et obiectionibus eorum etc.**

> TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 215.

### Divisio textus.

Supra reprobavit Magister errorem ponentium, corpus Christi non esse vere in altari, et hoc respondendo eorum sophisticis obiectionibus; in parte ista veritatem fidei confirmat, multiplici auctoritate ostendens, quod corpus Christi vere est in altari, et simul cum hoc ostendens, qua virtute sit ibi. Et habet haec pars tres partes. In prima resumit errorem superius positum cum sua ratione, ut ipsum infringat veritatis ostensione. In secunda manifestando veritatem convincit errorem, ibi: *Haec et his similia obiiciunt* etc. In tertia concludit veritatem iam probatam, ibi: *Ex his aliisque constat* etc.

Prima parte et ultima remanentibus indivisis, media dividitur in duas. In prima ostendit duplici auctoritate, quod corpus Christi vere potest esse in altari. In secunda vero ostendit, quod non solum potest esse, immo vere est post consecrationem, ibi: *Item ante benedictionem alia species nominatur.* Et utraeque auctoritates habent secum rationes coniunctas. Nam primae duae dicunt, quod virtus Verbi, quae potuit creare[^1], et virtus Spiritus sancti, quae potuit in utero Virginis mirabiliter et praeter ordinem naturae corpus Christi formare, potest similiter, immo multo fortius, substantias in id quod iam erat, mutare. Similiter duae sequentes dicunt, quod panis convertatur in verum corpus[^2], et ibi sit corpus, ubi erat panis. Hoc fit secreta potestate et virtute Spiritus sancti.

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de Sacramento eucharistiae per comparationem ad virtutem transsubstantiantem.

Secundo, per comparationem ad virtutem apprehendentem.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiandi per comparationem ad virtutem creandi.

Secundo, per comparationem ad virtutem concipiendi.

Tertio, per comparationem ad verbum.

Quarto, per comparationem ad elementum.

<!-- page 228 -->

### Articulus I.
*De eucharistia respectu virtutis transsubstantiantis.*

---

english:
## Commentary on Distinction X
### Part II.

*The truth of faith, that the body of Christ is truly on the altar, is confirmed.*

**Sufficient answer has been made to the heretics and their objections, etc.**

> FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 215.

### Division of the text.

Above, the Master refuted the error of those who hold that the body of Christ is not truly on the altar, and this by responding to their sophistical objections; in this part he confirms the truth of faith, showing by manifold authority that the body of Christ is truly on the altar, and showing at the same time by what power it is there. And this part has three parts. In the first he takes up again the error set down above together with its reasoning, in order to break it down by the demonstration of the truth. In the second, by making the truth manifest, he refutes the error, there: *These and the like they object*, etc. In the third he concludes the truth now proved, there: *From these and other things it is established*, etc.

With the first part and the last remaining undivided, the middle is divided into two. In the first he shows by a twofold authority that the body of Christ truly can be on the altar. In the second he shows that it not only can be, but indeed truly is after the consecration, there: *Likewise, before the blessing another species is named.* And both authorities have reasons joined to them. For the first two say that the power of the Word, which was able to create[^1], and the power of the Holy Spirit, which was able in the womb of the Virgin wondrously and beyond the order of nature to form the body of Christ, can likewise—indeed much more strongly—change substances into that which already was. Likewise the two following say that the bread is converted into the true body[^2], and that the body is there where the bread was. This is done by the secret power and might of the Holy Spirit.

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part two things are principally inquired.

First it is asked about the Sacrament of the Eucharist in comparison to the transubstantiating power.

Second, in comparison to the apprehending power.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First it is asked about the power of transubstantiating in comparison to the power of creating.

Second, in comparison to the power of conceiving.

Third, in comparison to the word.

Fourth, in comparison to the element.

### Article I.
*On the Eucharist with respect to the power of transubstantiating.*

---

la: Edd. omittunt *quae potuit creare.*

en: The editions omit *which was able to create.*

la: Cod. B supplet *Christi.*

en: Codex B supplies *of Christ.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 25694–25769; two-column PDF bands for printed pp. 227–228 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p227-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p228-{L,R}-0.png`) authoritative where OCR fragmented. Running head confirmed **DIST. X. P. II.** (printed p. 227); offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **Pars II structure confirmed:** TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM lists two principal heads — (1) *per comparationem ad virtutem transsubstantiantem* = **ARTICULUS I** with **four** questions (creating / conceiving / word / element), and (2) *per comparationem ad virtutem apprehendentem* = **ARTICULUS II** with **two** questions. So Pars II = ART I (4 q) + ART II (2 q). ✓
- **Page-split map:** p. 227 (cols L→R) holds COMMENTARIUS header + Pars II rubric, DIVISIO TEXTUS, TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and the p. 227 footer block (5 numbered notes). The `<!-- page 228 -->` break falls immediately before ARTICULUS I. p. 228 carries the ARTICULUS I header + subtitle (this chunk's tail) and then QUAESTIO I, which begins the next chunk (`d10-p2-a1-q1`).
- **Footer ownership:** p. 227 notes 1, 2 (*Idem dub. solvit B. Albert. …*; *Libr. II homil. in Evang. homil. 26 …*) and note 3 (*Ita codd. GH, edd. palpari … infra d. 49. p. II. art. princ. 2. a. 3. q. 2; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med. …*) are all anchored in the preceding **Pars I Dubium V** (Gregorius / palpabilitas Respondeo) and belong to that chunk. This chunk owns only notes **4** (`Edd. omittunt quae potuit creare`, anchored at *quae potuit creare*) and **5** (`Cod. B supplet Christi`, anchored at *verum corpus*), renumbered here as [^1] and [^2].
- **Footers left to `d10-p2-a1-q1`:** none from p. 227 (its body owns its share already); QUAESTIO I and the p. 228 footers (notes from the *Fundamenta* / arguments, e.g. the Ambrosius `1` and `…esse 7` markers visible on p. 228) belong to `d10-p2-a1-q1`.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; *VIDE SUPRA PAG. 215* digit confirmed (OCR `2lo`/`215` → 215 per PDF band).

method: LLM-assisted translation from the Quaracchi Latin, verified chunk-by-chunk against the printed plates (apparatus roster, cross-references, page/gutter boundaries).

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 216 -->

### Articulus Unicus. *De veritate et modo praesentiae Christi in Sacramento altaris.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Christus sit in Sacramento altaris secundum veritatem.*

Et quod sit in altari secundum veritatem, videtur:

1. *Quia* Dominus[^1] dixit: *Hoc est corpus meum*: ergo si mentiri non potuit, quod demonstravit fuit corpus suum; et dedit illum ritum, secundum quem ipse confecit: ergo cum modo conficitur secundum illum ritum, verum corpus Christi est in altari. Si dicas, quod illud non intelligitur per *identitatem*, sed per *significationem*, sicut illud[^2]: *Petra est Christus*; ergo secundum hoc per *significationem* similiter posset dici de manna, agno paschali et sacrificio Melchisedech: tunc ergo non erit differentia inter Sacramentum novae legis et veteris.

2. Item, primae ad Corinthios decimo[^3]: *Panis, quem frangimus, nonne participatio corporis Domini est?* ergo etc. *Si dicas*, quod hoc similiter dicitur per significationem: *contra*: Apostolus postea infert undecimo capitulo: *Itaque qui manducat et bibit indigne reus est corporis et sanguinis Domini.* Sed si hoc verum esset, quia *signum*; tunc similiter, quia haec vox *Christus* est *signum*, qui pronuntiaret in peccato, esset reus corporis et sanguinis; quod falsum est.

3. Item, Matthaei ultimo[^4]: *Ecce ego vobiscum sum usque ad consummationem saeculi.* Constat, quod hoc non dicit quantum ad Apostolos, quia ante sunt mortui: ergo quantum ad credentes; sed non quantum ad effectum divinitatis et gratiae — quia secundum divinitatem est cum omnibus hominibus, secundum gratiam non est semper cum fidelibus omnibus — intelligit ergo secundum humanitatem. Sed hoc non visibiliter, sed sub Sacramento: ergo etc.

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia caro Christi vere est cibus[^5]; sed cibus, qui non exponitur ad cibandum, est frustra: ergo si caro Christi non est frustra, exponitur ad cibandum. Sed non in se nec visibiliter, ne generet horrorem: ergo est vera caro Christi sub Sacramento.

5. Item, Christus pro salute nostra carnem suam veram exposuit ad patiendum, cum adhuc essemus iniusti[^6]: ergo si multo magis debet diligere iustos, carnem ergo suam veram exponet ad reficiendum, non tantum signa: ergo etc.

6. Item, «*ars et virtus circa difficile*[^7]», et quanto difficilius est credere, tanto magis meritorium: sed quod Christus sit in Sacramento sicut in signo tantum, nullam habet difficultatem; quod autem sit in Sacramento veraciter, sicut in caelo, hoc maximam habet difficultatem: ergo hoc maxime meritorium est credere. Ergo si debuit facere, quod magis esset meritorium; patet etc.

**Contra:** 1. Ostenditur, quod non sit ibi secundum veritatem, primo per *impossibilitatem*: quia corpus Christi non ante erat in altari, et nunc est: ergo aliquo genere motus est mutatum; sed non mutatione locali, quia tunc a caelo recederet[^8]: ergo aliquo alio genere mutationis. Sed aliae species motus solum cadunt circa mutabile et alterabile; corpus autem Christi glorificatum impossibile est variari: ergo etc.

2. Item, nihil est nec potest esse extra terminum substantiae suae[^9]; sed corpus Christi in caelo existens habet ibi terminum suae substantiae: ergo impossibile est, quod sit alibi quam in caelo: ergo impossibile est, quod sit secundum veritatem in hoc Sacramento: ergo si est ibi, est solum sicut in signo.

<!-- page 217 -->

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur propter *congruitatem*: quia Sacramenta instituta sunt propter humiliationem, ut homo in inferioribus se quaereret et inveniret salutem[^10]: ergo cum corpus Christi verum non sit inferius, non congruit Sacramento.

4. Item, omnia Sacramenta sunt ad Dei honorificationem et reverentiam; sed si corpus Christi verum esset ibi; cum reverentia sit a loco, in quo est, se elongare, sicut dictum est Moysi, Exodi tertio[^11]: *Solve calceamentum* etc., nullus deberet ad hoc Sacramentum accedere. Si ergo institutum est, ut homo accedat, salva reverentia; non est ibi corpus verum.

5. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur etiam propter *inutilitatem*: quia Ioannis sexto[^12] dicitur: *Caro non prodest quidquam*: ergo caro secundum sui veritatem non reficit: ergo si non debet in hoc Sacramento esse aliquid, quod non prosit, non ergo est ibi Christus secundum carnem.

6. Item, gratia, quae datur in hoc Sacramento, est a Deo; sed Deus Christus aeque bene operatur ubi non est secundum praesentiam corporis, sicut ubi est, — sicut patet in filio reguli, unde reprehenditur regulus, quia corporalem praesentiam quaerebat[^13] — ergo nulla esset ibi utilitas.

> **Conclusio.** Christum esse in Sacramento altaris secundum veritatem, et fidei pietas docet et Sacramenti dignitati congruit.

**Respondeo:** Sicut tangit Magister[^1b], opinio quorundam fuit et error pessimus, quod Christus non esset in altari nisi tantum sicut in signo; et dicitur manducari, quia signum eius accipitur et manducatur. Et hoc quidem volunt habere per simile in aliis, quia in aqua baptismi non est gratia sicut contenta, sed tantum sicut in signo. Et ad hoc quidem videntur pietate moveri, quasi nemo sit dignus tangere, nedum comedere veram carnem Dei. — Sed iste est error pessimus et contra *pietatem fidei*, quae tantum sibi beneficium a Deo datum recognoscit et gratias agit, quod in carne sua et natura propria nobiscum sit. — Est etiam contra *Sacramenti dignitatem* et excellentiam, in quo relucet divina *potentia*, *sapientia* et *bonitas* altius ceteris Sacramentis; unde cetera Sacramenta excellit et quasi consummativum est aliorum omnium[^2b], sicut caritas omnium virtutum.

Primum igitur hic manifestatur Dei *potentia* in operis singularitate. Cum enim panis in Christi corpus verum et integrum in multis altaribus convertitur, nullo remanente communi[^3b], et subito hoc fit: ostendit se Deus posse supra omnem potentiam operativam in conversione, supra *imaginativam* in hoc, quod idem est in pluribus locis, supra *intellectivam* in hoc, quod tam magnum et integrum in tam parva specie facit existere non contractum[^4b].

1. Ex hoc patet responsio ad illud quod obiicitur de *impossibilitate*. — Dicendum enim est, quod quamvis natura hoc non possit facere neque ratio intelligere, tamen Deus potest multa in corpus Christi convertere; et ex hoc corpus Christi est in multis locis, non per mutationem, quae fit in Christo, sed in pane, qui convertitur in ipsum[^5b].

<!-- page 218 -->

2. Similiter patet aliud. Quamvis enim corpus Christi terminum[^1c] habeat in caelo quantum ad existentiam naturalem, non tamen habet quantum ad potestatem conversionis, secundum quam alibi potest corpus converti in ipsum: et ideo illa virtute supernaturali fit alibi, qua aliud convertitur in ipsum; et hoc melius patebit in tertio problemate.

Relucet autem *sapientia* in congruitate. Christus enim Dominus noster satis magnum populum Domino acquisierat, ipsos in suo corpore mystico uniendo. In hoc autem corpore, quod est Ecclesia, sunt *multi* et diversi, sunt *viatores* et infirmi, sunt etiam *quotidianis peccatis circumdati*. Quia sunt *multi* in uno corpore, indigent *connexione*; quia *viatores*, indigent *refectione*; quia *quotidianis peccatis* implicati, indigent *oblatione*[^2c]; et haec quidem non tantum *interius* fienda erant per gratiam virtutum, sed *exterius* per gratiam Sacramentorum. — Congruum ergo fuit, ut haberent unum *exterius connectens*, sicut habebant unum *interius*; sed illud unum debuit esse ubi erant membra, et ita, cum in multis locis sint membra, debuit tale esse, quod congrueret esse in multis locis. Sed hoc non est nisi Deus, vel Divinitati unitum; sed Deus est interius, Divinitati unitum est corpus Christi: ergo corpus Christi debuit dari in Sacramento exteriori, quod est unum, in quo omnes fideles uniuntur in manducando unam et eandem escam[^3c]. — Congruebat etiam, ut haberent *exterius reficiens* in Sacramento; sed reficiens animam non est nisi Deus, vel Deo unitum; et hoc est corpus Christi verum: et ita congruum fuit, ut corpus Christi verum in Sacramento isto esset. — Congruebat etiam ut haberent *oblationem exteriorem*; sed Dominus unica oblatione offerendo se omnes alias oblationes evacuaverat: ergo si non debuit reficere quod destruxerat, debuit dare nobis illam eandem, quam obtulit, et non aliam[^4c]. Ergo sicut corpus Christi verum fuit oblatum in cruce, ita sacrificatur in altari.

3. Et ex hoc patet, quod non valet, quod obiicit propter *congruitatem*. — Quod[^5c] obiicit, quod homo non humiliatur in hoc Sacramento; dicendum, quod immo, quia in signo exteriori visibili est humiliatio. Praeterea, in hoc super-omnia humiliatur et captivatur hominis intellectus[^6c], quia credere compellitur quod nullatenus potest comprehendere. Praeter hoc etiam in hoc Sacramento est exemplum totius humilitatis, quia Dominus maiestatis tam modico et paupere pallio adhuc in exemplum humilitatis et paupertatis vestitur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de reverentia, dicendum, quod reverentia non tantum fit Deo[^7c] recedendo, sed etiam humiliter ad ipsum accedendo, maxime, cum ipse vocat, quia, si homo non iret, cum vocatur, non esset reverentia, sed stultitia.

Apparet etiam tertio divina *bonitas* in utilitate. Nam ex hoc, quod Christus est ibi corporaliter praesens, fidei meritum augetur, dum hoc credit quod nullatenus ratione cognoscit. Caritatis etiam devotio inflammatur, quando sentit Dominum sibi praesentem in carne; sicut enim ad praesentiam ignis expellitur frigus, sic ad praesentiam carnis Christi expellitur tepor. Unde Damascenus[^8c] dicit, quod «caro Christi est tanquam carbo ignitus». Item, spei fiducia sublevatur; dum enim ipsum eundem offert Patri, qui oblatus est in cruce; quis est, qui non confidat exaudiri?

5. Per hoc etiam patet, quod obiicit de *inutilitate*, quia quod dicit Dominus: *Caro non prodest quidquam*, intelligit: *carnaliter intelligenti*[^9c]. Ille autem intelligit carnaliter, non qui intelligit carnem esse praesentem, sed qui intelligit, Christum manducari secundum quod comeditur caro cuiuslibet animalis per frusta. Sed tamen multum prodest eam veraciter assumenti sub Sacramento.

6. Similiter patet aliud, quia praesentia corporis non auget Dei virtutem; sed congruum est, quod Dominus ex sua praesentia corporali aliquod munus specialius tribuat; et licet non valeat illi qui credit, eum non posse operari, nisi ubi est corporaliter; credenti tamen multum valet, sicut multum valuit Zachaeo praesentia corporis[^10c].

english:
### Article Unique. *On the truth and mode of the presence of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar.*
### Question I. *Whether Christ is in the Sacrament of the altar according to truth.*

That he is on the altar according to truth seems to be the case:

1. *Because* the Lord[^1] said: *This is my body*: therefore, since he could not lie, what he indicated was his body; and he gave that rite according to which he himself consecrated: therefore, since it is now consecrated according to that rite, the true body of Christ is on the altar. If you say that this is not to be understood by *identity*, but by *signification*, like that text[^2]: *The Rock was Christ*; then accordingly, by *signification*, the same could likewise be said of the manna, the paschal lamb, and the sacrifice of Melchizedek: then therefore there will be no difference between the Sacrament of the new law and that of the old.

2. Likewise, in the first to the Corinthians, the tenth[^3]: *The bread which we break, is it not the participation of the body of the Lord?* therefore etc. *If you say* that this too is said by signification: *on the contrary*: the Apostle afterwards adds in the eleventh chapter: *Therefore whoever eats and drinks unworthily is guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.* But if this were true because it is a *sign*; then likewise, since this word *Christ* is a *sign*, whoever should utter it in sin would be guilty of the body and blood; which is false.

3. Likewise, in the last [chapter] of Matthew[^4]: *Behold, I am with you until the consummation of the age.* It is established that he does not say this with respect to the Apostles, since they died beforehand: therefore with respect to believers; but not with respect to the effect of divinity and grace — since according to divinity he is with all men, and according to grace he is not always with all the faithful — therefore he understands it according to his humanity. But this not visibly, but under the Sacrament: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the flesh of Christ is truly food[^5]; but food which is not set forth for feeding is in vain: therefore if the flesh of Christ is not in vain, it is set forth for feeding. But not in itself nor visibly, lest it generate horror: therefore the true flesh of Christ is under the Sacrament.

5. Likewise, Christ for our salvation set forth his true flesh to suffer, while we were still unjust[^6]: therefore if he ought to love the just much more, he will then set forth his true flesh for refreshing, not merely signs: therefore etc.

6. Likewise, «*art and power are concerned with the difficult*[^7]», and the more difficult it is to believe, the more meritorious: but that Christ should be in the Sacrament only as in a sign has no difficulty; whereas that he should be in the Sacrament truly, as in heaven, has the greatest difficulty: therefore to believe this is most meritorious. Therefore if he ought to do what would be more meritorious; it is clear etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. It is shown that he is not there according to truth, first by *impossibility*: because the body of Christ was not before on the altar, and now is: therefore it has been changed by some kind of motion; but not by local motion, since then it would depart from heaven[^8]: therefore by some other kind of change. But the other species of motion fall only about what is changeable and alterable; but it is impossible for the glorified body of Christ to be varied: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, nothing is nor can be outside the boundary of its own substance[^9]; but the body of Christ existing in heaven has there the boundary of its substance: therefore it is impossible for it to be anywhere but in heaven: therefore it is impossible for it to be according to truth in this Sacrament: therefore if it is there, it is only as in a sign.

<!-- page 217 -->

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown on account of *congruity*: because the Sacraments were instituted on account of humiliation, that man might seek and find salvation in lower things[^10]: therefore since the true body of Christ is not lower, it is not congruous to the Sacrament.

4. Likewise, all the Sacraments are for the honoring and reverence of God; but if the true body of Christ were there; since reverence is to withdraw from the place in which it is, as was said to Moses, in the third [chapter] of Exodus[^11]: *Loose your sandal* etc., no one ought to approach this Sacrament. If therefore it was instituted that man should approach, with reverence preserved; the true body is not there.

5. Likewise, this same thing is shown also on account of *uselessness*: because in the sixth [chapter] of John[^12] it is said: *The flesh profits nothing*: therefore the flesh according to its truth does not refresh: therefore if there ought not to be in this Sacrament anything that does not profit, then Christ is not there according to the flesh.

6. Likewise, the grace which is given in this Sacrament is from God; but God-Christ works equally well where he is not according to bodily presence, as where he is, — as is clear in the case of the ruler's son, whence the ruler is reproached because he sought a bodily presence[^13] — therefore there would be no usefulness there.

> **Conclusion.** That Christ is in the Sacrament of the altar according to truth, both the piety of faith teaches and the dignity of the Sacrament requires.

**I respond:** As the Master touches upon[^1b], the opinion of certain men was — and a most wicked error — that Christ was not on the altar except only as in a sign; and he is said to be eaten because his sign is received and eaten. And they wish to support this by a likeness in other things, since in the water of baptism grace is not present as contained, but only as in a sign. And to this indeed they seem to be moved by piety, as if no one were worthy to touch, much less to eat, the true flesh of God. — But this is a most wicked error and against the *piety of faith*, which acknowledges so great a benefit given to it by God and gives thanks, that he is with us in his own flesh and proper nature. — It is also against the *dignity of the Sacrament* and its excellence, in which the divine *power*, *wisdom*, and *goodness* shine forth more loftily than in the other Sacraments; whence it surpasses the other Sacraments and is, as it were, the consummation of all the others[^2b], as charity is of all the virtues.

First, therefore, here is manifested the *power* of God in the singularity of the work. For when the bread is converted into the true and whole body of Christ on many altars, with nothing common remaining[^3b], and this happens suddenly: God shows himself to be able beyond all operative power in the conversion, beyond the *imaginative* [power] in this, that the same thing is in several places, beyond the *intellective* [power] in this, that he makes so great and whole a thing to exist uncontracted in so small a species[^4b].

1. From this is clear the response to the objection raised concerning *impossibility*. — For it must be said that, although nature cannot do this nor reason understand it, yet God can convert many things into the body of Christ; and from this the body of Christ is in many places, not by a change which occurs in Christ, but in the bread, which is converted into him[^5b].

<!-- page 218 -->

2. The other [objection] is likewise clear. For although the body of Christ has its boundary[^1c] in heaven with respect to natural existence, yet it does not have it with respect to the power of conversion, according to which the body can be converted into him elsewhere: and therefore by that supernatural power it comes to be elsewhere, by which another thing is converted into him; and this will be made clearer in the third problem.

But *wisdom* shines forth in the congruity. For Christ our Lord had acquired a sufficiently great people for the Lord, by uniting them in his mystical body. But in this body, which is the Church, there are *many* and diverse, there are *wayfarers* and the infirm, there are also those *surrounded by daily sins*. Because they are *many* in one body, they need *connection*; because they are *wayfarers*, they need *refreshment*; because they are entangled in *daily sins*, they need *oblation*[^2c]; and these things were to be done not only *interiorly* through the grace of the virtues, but *exteriorly* through the grace of the Sacraments. — It was therefore congruous that they should have one *exterior connecting [thing]*, just as they had one *interior [thing]*; but that one thing had to be where the members were, and so, since the members are in many places, it had to be such as was congruous to be in many places. But this is none other than God, or what is united to the Divinity; but God is interior, and the body of Christ is united to the Divinity: therefore the body of Christ had to be given in an exterior Sacrament, which is one, in which all the faithful are united in eating one and the same food[^3c]. — It was also congruous that they should have an *exterior refreshing [thing]* in the Sacrament; but what refreshes the soul is none other than God, or what is united to God; and this is the true body of Christ: and so it was congruous that the true body of Christ should be in this Sacrament. — It was also congruous that they should have an *exterior oblation*; but the Lord, by offering himself in a single oblation, had emptied out all other oblations: therefore if he ought not to restore what he had destroyed, he had to give us that same thing which he offered, and not another[^4c]. Therefore just as the true body of Christ was offered on the cross, so it is sacrificed on the altar.

3. And from this is clear that the objection from *congruity* does not hold. — As to what it objects, that man is not humbled in this Sacrament[^5c]; it must be said that, on the contrary, [he is], because in the exterior visible sign there is humiliation. Moreover, in this above all things the intellect of man is humbled and made captive[^6c], because it is compelled to believe what it can in no way comprehend. Besides this, in this Sacrament there is also an example of all humility, since the Lord of majesty is still clothed in so small and poor a cloak, as an example of humility and poverty.

4. To the objection concerning reverence, it must be said that reverence is shown to God not only by withdrawing[^7c], but also by humbly approaching him, especially when he himself calls, since, if a man did not go when called, it would not be reverence, but folly.

There appears also, thirdly, the divine *goodness* in usefulness. For from this, that Christ is there bodily present, the merit of faith is increased, while it believes what it in no way knows by reason. The devotion of charity is also kindled, when it senses the Lord present to it in the flesh; for just as at the presence of fire cold is driven out, so at the presence of the flesh of Christ lukewarmness is driven out. Whence Damascene[^8c] says that «the flesh of Christ is as a burning coal». Likewise, the confidence of hope is raised up; for while one offers to the Father that very same one who was offered on the cross; who is there who would not trust to be heard?

5. By this is also clear what it objects concerning *uselessness*, namely that what the Lord says: *The flesh profits nothing*, he understands: *to one understanding carnally*[^9c]. But he understands carnally, not who understands the flesh to be present, but who understands that Christ is eaten in the way the flesh of any animal is eaten in pieces. But nevertheless it greatly profits the one truly receiving it under the Sacrament.

6. The other [objection] is likewise clear, since the presence of the body does not increase the power of God; but it is congruous that the Lord from his bodily presence should bestow some more special gift; and although it is of no avail to the one who believes that he cannot work except where he is bodily; yet to the believer it is of great avail, just as the presence of his body availed much to Zacchaeus[^10c].

la: Codd. G H M U Z *corpus Christi*.

en: Codices G H M U Z [read] *the body of Christ*.

la: Plurimi codd. male *damnabant*.

en: Most codices wrongly [read] *damnabant*.

la: Matth. 26, 26; Marc. 14, 22; Luc. 22, 19. — Inferius post *dedit* codd. W Y addunt *illis* (Alex. Hal. aliis). Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. a. 2. q. 3.

en: Matt. 26:26; Mark 14:22; Luke 22:19. — Below, after *dedit*, codices W Y add *illis* (Alexander of Hales [and] others). Cf. above, d. 8, p. I, a. 2, q. 3.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 10, 4: *Petra autem erat Christus.* Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — De seqq. vide supra d. 8. p. I. a. I. q. 2.

en: 1 Cor. 10:4: *And the Rock was Christ.* Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — On what follows, see above d. 8, p. I, a. I, q. 2.

la: Vers. 16. Plurimi codd. cum edd. *Panis, quem frangimus, corpus Domini est.* — Seq. textus est ibid. 11, 27: *Itaque quicumque manducaverit panem hunc, vel biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis etc.*

en: Verse 16. Most codices with the editions [read] *The bread which we break is the body of the Lord.* — The following text is ibid. 11:27: *Therefore whoever shall eat this bread, or drink the cup of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body etc.*

la: Vers. 20, ubi Vulgata post *vobiscum sum* addit *omnibus diebus*. — Inferius post *Apostolos* cod. X subiungit *tantum*; subinde ex codd. B E F G K L aa supplevimus *ante*, pro quo alii codd. vel *autem*, vel *quandoque*, vel *aliquando*.

en: Verse 20, where the Vulgate after *I am with you* adds *all days*. — Below, after *the Apostles*, codex X adds *only*; thereupon from codices B E F G K L aa we have supplied *beforehand*, for which other codices [have] either *however*, or *at one time*, or *at some time*.

la: Ioan. 6, 56. — Inferius pro *nec visibiliter* Vat. *scilicet visibiliter*.

en: John 6:56. — Below, for *nor visibly*, the Vatican [edition reads] *namely visibly*.

la: Vide Rom. 5, 6. seqq. et 1. Petr. 3, 18. — In fine arg. pro *signa* aliquot codd. *signum*, edd. *in signum*.

en: See Rom. 5:6 ff. and 1 Pet. 3:18. — At the end of the argument, for *signs* several codices [have] *sign*, the editions *for a sign*.

la: Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 3. — In fine arg. pro *esset meritorium* codd. A E F G L V *esset meritum* [cod. U *ad meritum*].

en: Aristotle, *Nicomachean Ethics* II, c. 3. — At the end of the argument, for *would be meritorious* codices A E F G L V [have] *would be merit* [codex U: *toward merit*].

la: Ut docet Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. — Aliae species motus sunt «generatio, corruptio, augmentum, diminutio, alteratio», quae enumerantur ab Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Motu. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 664, nota 4, et tom. III. pag. 111, nota 11.

en: As Damascene teaches, *On the Orthodox Faith* IV, c. 13. — The other species of motion are «generation, corruption, increase, diminution, alteration», which are enumerated by Aristotle, *Categories*, c. on Motion. Cf. tom. I, p. 664, note 4, and tom. III, p. 111, note 11.

la: Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 14. (c. 2.): *Si igitur locus est quod primum continet unumquodque corpus, terminus utique erit; quare videbitur species ac forma cuiusque locus esse, quo terminatur magnitudo et materia magnitudinis*; haec [aliae versiones: *hic*] enim est uniuscuiusque terminus.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 14 (c. 2): *If therefore place is what first contains each body, it will indeed be a boundary; whence the species and form of each thing will seem to be its place, by which the magnitude and the matter of the magnitude is bounded*; for this [other versions: *here*] is the boundary of each thing.

la: Ut dictum est supra lit. Magistri, d. 1. c. 6, et Comment. p. 1. q. I. in corp. necnon dub. 8. — Superius pro *congruitatem* cod. X melius *incongruitatem*.

en: As was said above in the text of the Master, d. 1, c. 6, and the Commentary, p. 1, q. I, in the body, as well as doubt 8. — Above, for *congruity*, codex X better [reads] *incongruity*.

la: Vers. 5. — Superius pro *honorificationem* codd. F G I L *honorem*, cod. H *honorationem*, cod. aa *honorificentiam*.

en: Verse 5. — Above, for *honoring*, codices F G I L [have] *honor*, codex H *honoration*, codex aa *honorificence*.

la: Vers. 64. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Verse 64. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Ioan. 4, 48: *Nisi signa et prodigia videritis, non creditis.* Cfr. Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 28. n. 1.

en: John 4:48: *Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe.* Cf. Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospel* II, homily 28, n. 1.

la: Hic in lit. c. 1. Cfr. etiam Innoc. III., IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 35, et C. *Ego Berengarius* (42.), de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: Here in the text, c. 1. Cf. also Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 35, and the canon *Ego Berengarius* (42), de Consecratione, d. 2.

la: Ut docet Dionys., de Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. p. 1. — Post *omnium virtutum* in cod. aa subiungitur *unde sicut caritas habet idem pro obiecto et pro fine* [cfr. III. Sent. d. 36. q. 6.], *sic in hoc Sacramento est idem significatum et contentum*.

en: As Dionysius teaches, *Ecclesiastical Hierarchy* c. 3, p. 1. — After *of all the virtues* codex aa adds *whence, just as charity has the same thing for its object and for its end* [cf. III Sent. d. 36 q. 6], *so in this Sacrament the signified and the contained are the same*.

la: Cod. O supplet *subiecto* [*materia* corporibus communis *subiectum* vocatur ab Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 7. seq.], quod codd. T U substituunt pro *subito*, ita legentes *communi et subiecto, sic ostendit* etc. Cfr. infra d. 12. p. 1. a. I. q. I. seqq. Edd. omittunt *hoc fit*.

en: Codex O supplies *subject* [*matter* common to bodies is called the *subject* by Aristotle, *Metaphysics* VII, text 7 f.], which codices T U substitute for *suddenly*, thus reading *common and subject, thus he shows* etc. Cf. below d. 12, p. 1, a. I, q. I ff. The editions omit *this happens*.

la: Cod. B addit *suae substantiae*, codd. F G I R V legunt *corpus Christi tantum habeat esse in caelo*.

en: Codex B adds *of its substance*, codices F G I R V read *that the body of Christ has being only in heaven*.

la: Vat. hic addit *multiplici*, et inferius post *sed* cum edd. *etiam*. Aliquanto superius pro *ipsos* Vat. *ipsum*.

en: The Vatican [edition] here adds *manifold*, and below after *but* with the editions [adds] *also*. Somewhat above, for *them* the Vatican [reads] *it*.

la: Epist. 1. Cor. 10, 3: *Et omnes eandem escam spiritalem manducaverunt.*

en: 1 Cor. 10:3: *And they all ate the same spiritual food.*

la: Edd., omisso *dare*, hic addunt *instituere oblationem*. — Cfr. Innocent. III, loc. cit. c. 14.

en: The editions, omitting *to give*, here add *to institute the oblation*. — Cf. Innocent III, loc. cit., c. 14.

la: Cod. L addit *enim*, edd. *autem*.

en: Codex L adds *for*, the editions *however*.

la: Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5: *In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.*

en: Reference is made to 2 Cor. 10:5: *Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.*

la: Cum codd. A F G (H a secunda manu) IV omisimus *a* ante *Deo*, pro quo cod. E *ab eo*.

en: With codices A F G (H by a second hand) IV we have omitted *a* [by] before *God*, for which codex E [reads] *ab eo* [from him].

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. Cfr. supra pag. 188, nota 4. — Cod. H idem. *ipse offertur* pro *ipsum eundem offert*.

en: Book IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 13. Cf. above p. 188, note 4. — Codex H likewise [reads] *he himself is offered* for *one offers that same one*.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Vat. *intelligitur de carnaliter intelligente*.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — The Vatican [reads] *it is understood of one understanding carnally*.

la: Vide Luc. 19, 9. — Edd. *corporis Christi*.

en: See Luke 19:9. — The editions [read] *of the body of Christ*. ---

latin_scholion:
<!-- page 218 -->

**I.** Inter plures antiquos haereticos, qui veram realemque Christi in ss. Sacramento praesentiam impugnarunt, famosus est Berengarius Turonensis († 1088); quem errorem etiam pleraeque sectae saeculi XIII. cum Waldensibus, et saeculi XVI. cum Carlostadio et Calvino professi sunt. Contra istos veritas catholica multis Ecclesiae decretis definita est (cfr. contra Berengarium retractatio eius apud Denzinger, *Enchiridion*, n. 298, item contra Wicleff et Huss artic. Martini V. n. 560. 551, et <!-- page 219 -->praecipue Concil. Trident. Sess. XIII. c. I. et can. I. seqq. — Hanc saluberrimam veritatem Seraphicus Doctor hic etiam rationibus congruentiae praeclaris defendit.

*De hac 1. quaestione:* Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 1-3. — Scot., hic q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 1; S. III. q. 75. a. 1; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 62. seqq. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 1. quaestiunc. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. I. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
<!-- page 218 -->

**I.** Among the many ancient heretics who attacked the true and real presence of Christ in the most holy Sacrament, famous is Berengarius of Tours († 1088); which error also most of the sects of the thirteenth century with the Waldensians, and of the sixteenth century with Carlostadt and Calvin, professed. Against these the Catholic truth has been defined by many decrees of the Church (cf. against Berengarius his retraction in Denzinger, *Enchiridion*, n. 298, likewise against Wycliffe and Huss the articles of Martin V, n. 560, 551, and <!-- page 219 -->especially the Council of Trent, Session XIII, c. I and can. I ff. — This most salutary truth the Seraphic Doctor here also defends with brilliant reasons of congruity.

*On this 1st question:* Alex. of Hales, S. p. IV q. 10 m. 7 a. 3 § 1-3. — Scotus, here q. I. — S. Thomas, here q. I a. 1; S. III q. 75 a. 1; S. c. Gent. IV c. 62 ff. — B. Albert, here a. 1. — Petr. a Tar., here q. I a. 1 quaestiunc. I. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1 q. I. — Durandus, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{216,217,218}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, re-cropped at split x=2050 for p.216 and x=1780 for pp.217–219 to capture the full inner margin of each column; the default 1660/1880 splits truncated the right column), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 24364–24707) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutio / footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 216–218 = PDF 236–238). Title alignment confirmed against the auto-chunked frontmatter and the divisio's TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM ("Primo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum veritatem"): this q1 is the true-presence question.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 216: Articulus/Quaestio headers; arguments 1 (pro) — 2 (pro begins).
- p. 216 → 217 boundary falls inside *Contra* arg. 2 (". . . est solum sicut in signo." | "3. Item, hoc ipsum . . .").
- p. 217: *Contra* args. 3–6, Conclusio, Respondeo, *Ad 1* (begins).
- p. 217 → 218 boundary falls inside *Ad 1*/*Ad 2* (". . . qui convertitur in ipsum." | "2. Similiter patet aliud . . .").
- p. 218: *Ad 2* through *Ad 6*; Scholion §I begins (left col. bottom → right col. bottom).
- p. 218 → 219: Scholion §I continues onto p. 219 left column (the "praecipue Concil. Trident. . . ." clause + the "De hac 1. quaestione" bibliography). Page-break comment placed mid-sentence in §I.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 30 entries total, all anchored in this q1's body).**
- p. 216: 9 footers — left col. 1–5 (here `^1`–`^5`), right col. 6–9 (here `^6`–`^9`). All anchor in the pro-arguments and contra args. 1–2. The DIVISIO chunk owns the p.216 footers anchored above the QUAESTIO I header (none in this range — the divisio's TRACTATIO/ARTICULUS opener carries no footers on this page band).
- p. 217: 11 footers — left col. 1–5 (here `^10`–`^13` + `^1b`; note: the left-col. footer note 5 "Vers. 64" anchors at "Respondeo: Sicut tangit Magister" → rendered `^1b`), right col. 6–11 (here `^2b`–`^5b` and the scholion-side refs). Right-col. footer 11 ("Cfr. Alan. ab Insulis . . . c. 58, ubi") is cut at the page foot and continues into the p.218/219 scholion apparatus — it belongs to the Scholion §I bibliography, not the body, and is not separately rendered as a body footnote here (scholion text is self-contained with embedded citations).
- p. 218: 10 footers — left col. 1–4, right col. 5–10 (here `^1c`–`^10c`). All anchor in *Ad 2*–*Ad 6*.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The Articulus Unicus carries a single SCHOLION whose bibliography is keyed by question. Only the **q1-keyed** material is rendered: §I (the Berengarius/heresy survey + Trent + "Hanc saluberrimam veritatem . . .") and *De hac 1. quaestione* (the q1 doctor-list). The **§II / *Quoad 2. quaestionem*** block (p.219, on quantity/concomitance) is q2-keyed and is **excluded** here — it belongs to a1-q2. The scholion text contains no `[^N]` markers (citations are inline).

**Cross-chunk footer hand-offs.** The divisio chunk (raw L24313–24363) owns everything above `QUAESTIO I.` (L24364), including the p.216 ARTICULUS-opener band. The a1-q2 chunk (raw L24708+) owns p.219's body (QUAESTIO II opener), the §II/*Quoad 2. quaestionem* scholion block, and p.219's footer apparatus.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from PDF bands: arg. 4 *cibus* (OCR `cil^an-dum`→*cibandum*); Respondeo *consummativum* (OCR `consummalivum`); *Ad 2* *mystico* (OCR `myStico`); Damascene quote *carbo ignitus*; scholion *Carlostadio* (OCR `Carlesludio`/`Carlostadio` — PDF reads *Carlostadio*). Marginal rubrics in the right column (*Opinio haeretica*, *Reprobatur dupliciter*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio 1/2/3*, *Ad 1./2./3./4./5./6. oppos.*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.


title: Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 219 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum suam naturalem quantitatem, an sit ibi a quantitate abstractum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum suam naturalem quantitatem, an sit ibi a quantitate abstractum. Et quod magis *abstractum*, videtur.

1. Augustinus *de Consecratione*, distinctione secunda[^1]: «Corpus, in quo resurrexit, uno tantum loco esse oportet; veritas autem eius ubique diffusa est»: ergo in Sacramento est veritas, non tamen est sua corporeitas sive quantitas.

2. Item, videtur *ratione*: quia in hoc Sacramento solum est Christus ut cibus spiritualis; sed quantitas nihil facit ad *esse* cibi spiritualis: ergo etc.

3. Item, impossibile et non intelligibile est, duas dimensiones esse simul[^2]: ergo si divina Maiestas contemperat se nostrae infirmitati in hoc Sacramento, ergo non debet facere hoc, scilicet ut corpus Christi sit cum quantitate, cum abstractio sit magis rationabilis et magis intelligibilis, et Deus faciat quod rationabilius est.

4. Item, multo congruentius est, separari substantiam ab accidente quam e converso; sed in hoc separatur accidens a substantia in speciebus[^3]: ergo in re contenta substantia a quantitate.

**Contra:** 1. Augustinus *de verbis Evangelii*[^4]: «Totus per partes manducatur in Sacramento, et manet integer totus in caelo»; sed totus et pars dicunt quantitatem: ergo etc.

2. Item, corpus Christi est vivens, et si vivens, organicum, et si organicum, quantum[^5]: ergo si in altari, non abstrahitur a vita, nec a quantitate.

3. Item, corpus Christi sive Christus ibi videt et audit, quamvis non loquatur, ne deprehendatur; sed sensus exteriores praesupponunt quantitatem[^6]: ergo est ibi secundum quantitatem.

4. Item, si non esset ibi quantitas, deponeret quantitatem; sed depositio accidentis absoluti inducit transmutationem secundum formam[^7]: ergo corpus Christi glorificatum transmutatur.

### Conclusio.

> In Sacramento altaris non tantum est corporis Christi veritas, sed etiam quantitas.

**Respondeo:** Quidam dixerunt, quod in Sacramento altaris est Christus, non tantum ut significatus, sed etiam contentus; sed tamen non est secundum suam quantitatem nec etiam secundum alia accidentia, quia ista nihil faciunt ad finem huius Sacramenti, qui est cibare. Et rationem huius habent ex hoc, quod ibi est corpus Christi, quia transfertur aliquid in ipsum; sed illud est pure substantia, non accidens, quia alia accidentia manent: et ideo transsubstantiatur in substantiam, ita quod est abstracta ab omnibus accidentibus.

<!-- page 220 -->

— Sed haec positio, quamvis non sit erronea, sicut praedicta, est tamen errori propinqua, ideo quia, etsi substantia corporea possit intelligi esse sine quantitate et aliis accidentibus, nunquam tamen intelligitur bene esse. Si ergo non habet, tunc male est. Et *rursus*, quamvis substantia possit abstrahi a quantitate, tamen quod corpus vivat et sit organicum et non sit quantum, hoc nec esse nec intelligi potest; et ideo ex hoc sequitur, corpus Christi nec bene ibi esse nec vivere; quod nefas est dicere.

Propterea dicendum, quod in altari non tantum est corporis Christi veritas, immo etiam quantitas.

Et ad intelligentiam obiectorum notandum, quod etsi in hoc Sacramento fieri debeant miracula, non tamen debent fieri, nisi quae congruant Sacramento. Sacramentum autem illud est mysterium fidei; et ideo *verum et occultum*. Quia *verum*, ideo, cum dicitur: *Hoc est corpus meum*, panis[^8] transit in corpus Christi, et hoc ubicumque dicatur. Et ex hoc oritur duplex miraculum: primum, quia panis transit in corpus Christi integrum et perfectum; et aliud, quia corpus Christi integrum est, ubicumque fit haec transsubstantiatio, ita *totum* et perfectum in parvo loco[^9], et *unum* in pluribus locis. — Quia vero *occultum*, ideo debent manere species et omnia sensibilia, ipso non apparente. Et ex hoc est duplex miraculum: unum, quia accidentia sunt sine subiecto; alterum vero, quod est ibi corpus clarissimum et est praesens et non videtur. Ex his patent obiecta.

*Ad 1. et 2.* Primum enim, quod dicit Augustinus, quod *veritas ubique* etc., non distinguit *veritatem* contra *quantitatem*, quae est de veritate corporis, sed contra *apparitionem sensibilem*, quia tantum in uno loco apparet. — Patet etiam sequens, quia quantitas facit ad Sacramenti veritatem et perfectionem, ut corpus contentum sit habens omnem perfectionem.

*Ad 3.* Ad aliud dicendum, quod Divinitas nostrae infirmitati se contemperat, salvata integritate Sacramenti. Et *praeterea* sic se contemperat, ut intellectum excedat, et fides locum et meritum habeat.

*Ad 4.* Ad ultimum dicendum, quod etsi Deus utrumque faciat[^10], tamen nulla esset utilitas nec quantum ad veritatem nec quantum ad celationem, si corporis Christi veritas a quantitate abstraheretur; et propterea non valet, quia non debet hic fieri, nisi quod congruit Sacramento[^11].

english:
### Question II. *Whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to its natural quantity, or whether it is there abstracted from quantity.*

Secondly it is asked, whether the body of Christ is on the altar according to its natural quantity, or whether it is there abstracted from quantity. And that it is rather *abstracted*, it seems.

1. Augustine, *On the Consecration*, distinction two[^1]: «The body, in which He rose, must be in one place only; but His truth is everywhere diffused»: therefore in the Sacrament there is truth, yet not His corporeity or quantity.

2. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: because in this Sacrament Christ is present only as spiritual food; but quantity contributes nothing to the *being* of spiritual food: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it is impossible and unintelligible that two dimensions be at once[^2]: therefore if the divine Majesty accommodates itself to our weakness in this Sacrament, then it ought not to do this, namely that the body of Christ be there with quantity, since abstraction is more rational and more intelligible, and God does what is more rational.

4. Likewise, it is much more fitting that substance be separated from accident than the reverse; but in this case accident is separated from substance in the species[^3]: therefore in the thing contained substance is separated from quantity.

**On the contrary:** 1. Augustine, *On the words of the Gospel*[^4]: «He is wholly eaten part by part in the Sacrament, and remains whole and entire in heaven»; but "whole" and "part" denote quantity: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the body of Christ is living, and if living, organic, and if organic, quantitative[^5]: therefore if it is on the altar, it is not abstracted from life, nor from quantity.

3. Likewise, the body of Christ, that is, Christ, there sees and hears, although He does not speak, lest He be detected; but the exterior senses presuppose quantity[^6]: therefore He is there according to quantity.

4. Likewise, if quantity were not there, He would have laid quantity aside; but the laying aside of an absolute accident induces a transmutation according to form[^7]: therefore the glorified body of Christ would be transmuted.

### Conclusion.

> On the altar of the Sacrament there is not only the truth of the body of Christ, but also its quantity.

**I respond:** Some have said that on the altar of the Sacrament Christ is present, not only as signified, but also as contained; yet that He is not present according to His quantity nor even according to the other accidents, because these contribute nothing to the end of this Sacrament, which is to feed. And they hold the reason for this from the fact that the body of Christ is there because something is transferred into it; but that is purely substance, not accident, since the other accidents remain: and therefore it is transubstantiated into substance, in such wise that it is abstracted from all accidents.

<!-- page 220 -->

— But this position, although it is not erroneous, like the aforesaid one, is nonetheless close to error, for this reason: that although corporeal substance can be understood to be without quantity and the other accidents, yet it is never understood to be *well*. If therefore it does not have them, then it is in a bad state. And *again*, although substance can be abstracted from quantity, nevertheless that a body should live and be organic and not be quantitative — this can neither be nor be understood; and therefore from this it follows that the body of Christ would neither be well there nor live; which it is impious to say.

Therefore it must be said that on the altar there is not only the truth of the body of Christ, but even its quantity.

And for the understanding of the objections it must be noted that, although miracles ought to be wrought in this Sacrament, nevertheless they ought not to be wrought except such as are fitting to the Sacrament. Now that Sacrament is the *mystery of faith*; and therefore it is *true and hidden*. Because it is *true*, therefore, when it is said: *This is my body*, the bread[^8] passes into the body of Christ, and this wherever it is said. And from this a twofold miracle arises: first, that the bread passes into the body of Christ whole and perfect; and another, that the body of Christ is whole, wherever this transubstantiation takes place, so that it is *whole* and perfect in a small place[^9], and *one* in many places. — But because it is *hidden*, therefore the species and all sensible things ought to remain, while He Himself does not appear. And from this there is a twofold miracle: one, that the accidents are without a subject; the other, that there is present there a most resplendent body, and it is present and is not seen. From these things the objections are made plain.

*To 1 and 2.* For the first, which Augustine says, that *the truth is everywhere* etc., does not distinguish *truth* against *quantity*, which belongs to the truth of the body, but against *sensible appearance*, because it appears only in one place. — The following too is plain, because quantity contributes to the truth and perfection of the Sacrament, so that the contained body should be one having every perfection.

*To 3.* To the other it must be said that the Divinity accommodates itself to our weakness, the integrity of the Sacrament being preserved. And *furthermore* it so accommodates itself that it surpasses the intellect, and faith has place and merit.

*To 4.* To the last it must be said that, although God could do both[^10], yet there would be no usefulness either as to the truth or as to the concealment, if the truth of the body of Christ were abstracted from quantity; and therefore it is of no avail, because it ought not to be done here except what is fitting to the Sacrament[^11].

la: Can. *Prima quidem* (44.). § 1. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — Non pauci codd. omittunt *eius*.

en: Canon *Prima quidem* (44.), § 1. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 1. — Not a few codices omit *eius* ("its").

la: Secundum Aristot., III. Metaph. text. 9. (II. c. 2.). Cfr. tom. II. pag. 324, nota 9, ubi allegavimus locos, in quibus Aristot. docet, quod impossibile sit, duo corpora esse simul in eodem loco. — Inferius pro *cum quantitate* cod. O *in quantitate ibi, immo cum abstractione*, cod. H *cum quantitate in Sacramento*. Subinde pro *et Deus faciat* cod. A *et ideo videtur, quod facit Deus*.

en: According to Aristotle, *Metaphysics* III, text 9 (bk. II, c. 2). Cf. tome II, p. 324, note 9, where we cited the passages in which Aristotle teaches that it is impossible for two bodies to be at once in the same place. — Below, for *cum quantitate* ("with quantity") codex O reads *in quantitate ibi, immo cum abstractione*, codex H *cum quantitate in Sacramento*. Then for *et Deus faciat* ("and God does") codex A reads *et ideo videtur, quod facit Deus* ("and therefore it seems that God does").

la: De quo cfr. infra d. 12. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. seq. — De maiori vide Aristot., I. Phys. text. 39. (c. 4.), et VII. Metaph. text. 3. (VI. c. 1.). — Post *in hoc* Vat. supplet *Sacramento*.

en: On which cf. below d. 12, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2 and following. — On the major premise see Aristotle, *Physics* I, text 39 (c. 4), and *Metaphysics* VII, text 3 (bk. VI, c. 1). — After *in hoc* ("in this") the Vatican edition supplies *Sacramento* ("Sacrament").

la: Ita allegatur in C. *Invitat Dominus* (70.), de Consecrat. d. 2; et secundum Ivon. Carnot. incipit: *Veritas, quae est Christus*, dum in C. *Qui manducant* (38.) citatur sermo 2. de Verbis Apostoli [in ed. Maur. serm. 131. de verbis Evang. Ioan. 6. n. 1.], et in C. *Qui manducat* (75.) dicitur: «Augustinus ex sermone de Verbis Domini». Habetur etiam in Glossa ordinaria super I. Cor. 10, 16, sumta ex Beda in hunc loc. [ed. Migne hunc Comment. attribuit Floro Diacono, et citatur Sermo de pers. Evang.]. Cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. XII. c. 3.

en: It is thus cited in the canon *Invitat Dominus* (70.), *On the Consecration* d. 2; and according to Ivo of Chartres it begins: *Veritas, quae est Christus* ("The truth, which is Christ"), while in the canon *Qui manducant* (38.) sermon 2 *On the Words of the Apostle* is cited [in the Maurist edition serm. 131 on the words of the Gospel of John 6, n. 1], and in the canon *Qui manducat* (75.) it is said: «Augustine from the sermon on the Words of the Lord». It is found also in the Ordinary Gloss on 1 Cor. 10:16, taken from Bede on this passage [the Migne edition attributes this Commentary to Florus the Deacon, and the *Sermo de personis Evangelii* is cited]. Cf. below the text of the Master, d. XII, c. 3.

la: Vide Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 3. seqq. (c. 1.).

en: See Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 3 and following (c. 1).

la: Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 7. (c. 1.): *Sensitivum enim non sine corpore est.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 7 (c. 1): «For the sensitive [power] is not without a body».

la: Cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 18. seq. (c. 2.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 23. seqq. (c. 4.), ubi agit de mutatione secundum quantitatem et qualitatem (accidentium absolutorum).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* V, text 18 and following (c. 2), and *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 23 and following (c. 4), where he treats of change according to quantity and quality (of absolute accidents).

la: Edd. cum aliquot codd. *corpus panis*. Mox post *Christi* cod. O prosequitur *integram et perfectum, et hoc ubicumque* etc.; pro *et hoc* Vat. *et hic*.

en: The editions, with some codices, read *corpus panis*. Soon after *Christi* codex O continues *integrum et perfectum, et hoc ubicumque* etc.; for *et hoc* the Vatican edition has *et hic*.

la: In codd. IX secunda manus addidit *sicut in magno*.

en: In nine codices a second hand has added *sicut in magno* ("as in a great [place]").

la: Sola Vat. *faceret*.

en: The Vatican edition alone reads *faceret* ("would do").

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion on the preceding question.

latin_scholion:
**De 2. quaestione.** Quoad 2. quaestionem notandum est, fide constare (cfr. Concil. Trident. loc. cit. can. 2.), sub utraque specie non tantum *corpus Christi*, sed *totum Christum*, scilicet corpus anima vivificatum et Divinitati hypostatice unitum, realiter et substantialiter in hoc ss. Sacramento contineri; item, esse «corpus quidem sub specie panis, et sanguinem sub vini specie *ex vi verborum*; ipsum autem corpus sub specie vini, et sanguinem sub specie panis, animamque sub utraque *vi naturalis illius connexionis et concomitantiae*, qua partes Christi Domini se copulantur» etc. (ibid. c. 3; cfr. Bonav., infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 4; S. Thom., S. III. q. 76. a. 1.). Hinc concludit S. Thom., quod tota quantitas dimensiva est in hoc Sacramento vere, sed non vi Sacramenti, sed vi realis concomitantiae, et «non secundum *proprium modum* [ut scilicet sit tota in toto, et singulae partes in singulis partibus], sed per modum substantiae, cuius natura est tota in toto et tota in qualibet parte» (ibid. a. 1.). Reprobatur autem communiter tanquam erronea opinio Durandi (hic q. 2.), qui cum prima opinione in corp. relata impugnat conclusionem, hoc falso principio innixus, quod *primarius* quantitatis effectus sit extensio in loco. Plures etiam Nominales, sed alio fundamento et explicatione usi, praedictae falsae opinioni favent. Praeter locos cit.: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. n. 13. seqq. — S. Thom., hic a. 2. quaestiunc. 4; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 34. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**On the 2nd question.** As to the 2nd question it must be noted that it is established by faith (cf. Council of Trent, loc. cit. can. 2) that under each species there is contained, really and substantially in this holy Sacrament, not only the *body of Christ*, but the *whole Christ*, namely the body vivified by the soul and hypostatically united to the Divinity; likewise, that there is «the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine *by the force of the words*; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, *by the force of that natural connection and concomitance* whereby the parts of Christ the Lord are joined together» etc. (ibid. c. 3; cf. Bonaventure, below d. 11, p. 1, q. 4; St. Thomas, *Summa* III, q. 76, a. 1). Hence St. Thomas concludes that the whole dimensive quantity is in this Sacrament truly, yet not by force of the Sacrament, but by force of real concomitance, and «not according to its *proper mode* [namely that it should be whole in the whole, and the single parts in the single parts], but after the manner of substance, whose nature is to be whole in the whole and whole in each part» (ibid. a. 1). But the opinion of Durandus (here q. 2) is commonly rejected as erroneous, who together with the first opinion reported in the body attacks the conclusion, relying on this false principle, that the *primary* effect of quantity is extension in place. Many Nominalists too, but using another foundation and explanation, favor the aforesaid false opinion. Besides the places cited: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit. n. 13 seqq. — St. Thomas, here a. 2, quaestiuncula 4; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV, c. 34. — Peter of Tarentaise, loc. cit. quaestiuncula 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 24708–24886), with the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutio / scholion / footer regions reconstructed from the 450-dpi PDF column bands (Vol II/III/IV override: PDF authoritative where OCR fragments). Bands: `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{238,239,240}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` read left-column then right-column. **Vision-file naming caveat:** the pre-existing `raw/vision/vol4/p-NNN.png` files were named by *PDF* page (offset-era artifact: p-220.png = printed 200); printed pp. 218–220 = PDF pp. 238–240 were re-rendered (`pdftoppm -r 450`) and colcropped with split_x=1880 (vol4's left/right divide; the default 1660 clips the left column).
- **Alignment confirmed.** Opener "Secundo quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in altari secundum suam naturalem quantitatem…" matches the target (Articulus Unicus, q2). q1 = raw L24364–24707 (precedes); QUAESTIO III = raw L24887+ (excluded).
- **Page-split map.** q2 spans printed pp. 219–220. p. 219 (left col): Fundamenta 1–4; (right col): Contra 1–4, Conclusio, opening of Respondeo. p. 220 (left col + part of right col): remainder of Respondeo (Durandus opinion + Reprobatur + the "duplex miraculum" exposition) and Solutio (Ad 1/2, Ad 3, Ad 4). `<!-- page 220 -->` placed at the "Sed haec positio…" seam where the Respondeo crosses the page (the receiving sentence is grammatically continuous with the prior page's "abstracta ab omnibus accidentibus").
- **Footer-ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. **p. 219** carries nn. 1–7, all anchored in q2's body (nn. 1–3 left-column Fundamenta; nn. 4–7 right-column Contra; n. 4 wraps left-bottom → right-top). **p. 220** carries nn. 1–9, but only **nn. 3, 4, 5, 6** are anchored in q2's body (panis / parvo loco / Deus utrumque faciat / congruit Sacramento); **p. 220 nn. 1, 2, 7, 8, 9 belong to q3** (QUAESTIO III, *Utrum corpus Christi sit sub speciebus definitive*) and are NOT claimed here. p. 219's footnotes are owned wholly by q2 (the page-218 footers — q1's Respondeo nn. + the Articulus scholion section I — belong to a1-q1). Renumbered for this chunk: p.219 nn.1–7 → [^1]–[^7]; p.220 nn.3,4,5,6 → [^8],[^9],[^10],[^11]. Total = 11 footnotes (within the 8–15 norm).
- **Scholion disposition.** The Articulus Unicus carries a single scholion split across printed pp. 218–219 with section I (general / Berengarius–Wycliffe–Hus history) + a "De hac 1. quaestione" reference list (both belonging to a1-q1) and a "II. Quoad 2. quaestionem…" doctrinal note + "Praeter locos cit." reference list keyed to q2. Only the q2-keyed material is rendered here under **De 2. quaestione** (`has_scholion: true`); the section-I history and the *De hac 1. quaestione* list are left to a1-q1.
- **[?] flags.** None. The OCR-garbled scholion/footer text was resolved cleanly against the PDF bands.


title: Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 220 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum corpus Christi sit sub speciebus definitive.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit sub speciebus definitive. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia illud loco definitur, quod est in uno loco; sed corpus Christi sub Sacramento est in pluribus locis: ergo etc. *Probatio minoris:* omne quod est, ubicumque consecratur, si in pluribus locis consecratur[^1], in pluribus locis est; sed corpus Christi est tale: ergo etc.

2. Item, omne illud, in quod possibile est plura in pluribus locis converti, possibile est in pluribus locis esse; sed corpus Christi est huiusmodi: ergo etc. Sed nullum tale habet esse definitum[^2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, ubicumque se extendit virtus verbi et elementum, se extendit etiam Sacramentum; sed virtus verbi non est determinata ad locum, sicut patet; similiter nec elementum, quod est panis: ergo nec hoc Sacramentum, ergo nec corpus Christi interius contentum.

4. Item, quod est in uno loco et potest sine sui mutatione esse in alio non est ibi definitive; sed corpus Christi est huiusmodi, quia est in caelo et potest sine mutatione sua esse in loco alio, ut in altari: ergo etc.

**Ad oppositum:**

**Contra:** 1. Omne individuum est *hic et nunc*[^3]; sed corpus Christi est individuum: ergo est hic et nunc. Sed quod est *hic et nunc* est in loco definitive: ergo etc. *Si dicas,* quod corpus Christi, quamvis sit individuum, tamen est unitum substan-

<!-- page 221 -->

tiae immensae et ratione illius unionis habet, quod sit in pluribus locis; si ista est sufficiens ratio: ergo ab instanti conceptionis fuit in pluribus locis; quod stultum est dicere. *Praeterea,* illa unio non aufert ei, quin sit individuum: ergo non aufert esse *hic et nunc* nec esse definitum[^4].

2. Item, si Christus in Sacramento potest esse in pluribus locis, esto quod tantum tria loca sint, in illis possibile est esse corpus Christi: ergo possibile est illis esse ubique; sed hoc, cum sit solius Dei, impossibile est alteri convenire[^5]: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod est in aliquo, ita quod movetur ad motum illius, est in illo definitive; sed Christus movetur ad motum totalis speciei: ergo etc. *Probatio minoris:* cum transfertur species, vere dicitur transferri corpus Christi verum: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Corpus Christi est sub speciebus sacramentaliter, non proprie definitive.

**Respondeo:** Sicut dicit Innocentius[^6], « quemadmodum Dei Filius secundum Divinitatem habet triplicem modum essendi: in omnibus per *essentiam,* in iustis per *gratiam,* in Christo per *unionem;* sic corpus Christi *localiter* est in caelo, *personaliter* in Verbo, *sacramentaliter* in altari ». Hoc tertio modo dicit « ipsum reperiri in pluribus locis », quia plures sunt species continentes. Unde per se loquendo, est in uno loco tantum, in quo *definitur,* sicut individuum; quia vero multa in ipsum convertuntur, quae sunt in diversis locis; et ipsum per consequens est in diversis locis secundum illum modum, secundum quem multa in ipsum convertuntur, et hoc sub Sacramento.

Unde notandum ad intelligentiam obiectorum, quod corpus Christi est *individuum,* et individuum, in quod *plura convertuntur* secundum se. Quia *individuum,* est in caelo tantum in proprio et definito loco. Quia vero in ipsum *plura convertuntur,* non habet terminum substantiae limitatum ad unum locum, sed extendit se ad locum conversionis[^7]. Et quia loca conversionis non possunt esse omnia nec unum solum, immo plura; quantum ad hoc nec quod immense est, sicut Deus, nec omnino definitive, sicut aliquod individuum, sed *medio modo,* sicut Deus secundum modum essendi per *gratiam* non est in omnibus, sed in pluribus.

Si ergo quaeratur ratio, quare corpus Christi est in pluribus locis; credo, quod haec sit ratio, quia plura convertuntur in ipsum totum et in pluribus *locis.* — Si quaeratur, quare plura; dicendum, quod Dominus instituit. Et si quaeratur *ratio institutionis;* dicendum, quod quia cibus spiritualis est et communis, ideo natum est cibare plures, et ideo plura convertuntur in ipsum; *aptitudinem* autem cibandi spiritualiter habet ex unione cum Divinitate, *actum* vero ex existentia sub Sacramento: et ideo institutum est, ut plura in illud corpus convertantur, et hoc sub Sacramento[^8].

1. Quod obiicitur primo de individuo, patet: quia ultra rationem individui habet, quod plura in ipsum convertantur in diversis locis. Unde sicut individuum, in quod alia possunt converti secundum partem, potest esse in *maiori loco;* sic illud, in quod alia convertuntur totaliter in diversis locis, potest esse in *pluribus locis.*

2. Ad aliud patet responsio, quia non in omnibus potest esse conversio, quia sacerdos non haberet locum, ad cuius ministerium fit. Posito autem per impossibile, quod tantum essent tria loca; tunc dicendum, quod esset ubique, sed non sicut Deus, quia Deus est ubique propter sui immensitatem, unde nulli potest abesse; sed corpus Christi esset ubique propter locorum paucitatem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de motu translationis, dicendum, quod corpus Christi medium tenet inter esse immensum et esse definitum; et ideo quodam modo est *immotum,* et quodam modo *mobile:* mobile quidem in uno loco et immotum in alio; et in eadem hostia non movetur ad motum partium, nec per se nec per accidens, nisi transferatur tota hostia. Si ergo *simpliciter* mutaretur et omnino, bene argueret; sed hoc non habet veritatem.

english:
### Question III. *Whether the body of Christ is under the species definitively.*

Thirdly it is asked, whether the body of Christ is under the species definitively. And that it is not, it seems:

1. Because that is defined to a place which is in one place; but the body of Christ under the Sacrament is in many places: therefore etc. *Proof of the minor:* everything that is, wherever it is consecrated, if it is consecrated in many places[^1], is in many places; but the body of Christ is such: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, everything into which it is possible for many things to be converted in many places, is able to be in many places; but the body of Christ is of this kind: therefore etc. But no such thing has definite being[^2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, wherever the power of the word and the element extend themselves, there the Sacrament also extends itself; but the power of the word is not determined to a place, as is evident; likewise neither is the element, which is bread: therefore neither is this Sacrament, therefore neither is the body of Christ contained within.

4. Likewise, that which is in one place and can without change of itself be in another is not there definitively; but the body of Christ is of this kind, because it is in heaven and can without change of itself be in another place, as on the altar: therefore etc.

**To the contrary:**

**On the contrary:** 1. Every individual is *here and now*[^3]; but the body of Christ is an individual: therefore it is here and now. But what is *here and now* is in a place definitively: therefore etc. *If you say* that the body of Christ, although it is an individual, is nevertheless united to an

immense substance, and by reason of that union has it that it is in many places; if this is a sufficient reason: therefore from the instant of its conception it was in many places; which is foolish to say. *Furthermore,* that union does not take from it that it is an individual: therefore it does not take away its being *here and now* nor its being definite[^4].

2. Likewise, if Christ in the Sacrament can be in many places, suppose there be only three places, in them it is possible for the body of Christ to be: therefore it is possible for it to be everywhere in them; but this, since it belongs to God alone, is impossible to befit another[^5]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, what is in something, so that it is moved at the motion of that thing, is in it definitively; but Christ is moved at the motion of the whole species: therefore etc. *Proof of the minor:* when the species is transferred, the true body of Christ is truly said to be transferred: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> The body of Christ is under the species sacramentally, not properly definitively.

**I respond:** As Innocent says[^6], « just as the Son of God according to his Divinity has a threefold mode of being: in all things by *essence,* in the just by *grace,* in Christ by *union;* so the body of Christ is *locally* in heaven, *personally* in the Word, *sacramentally* on the altar ». In this third mode he says that « it is found in many places », because there are many species containing it. Hence, properly speaking, it is in one place only, in which it is *defined,* like an individual; but because many things are converted into it, which are in diverse places, and it consequently is in diverse places according to that mode by which many things are converted into it, and this under the Sacrament.

Hence it must be noted, for the understanding of the objections, that the body of Christ is an *individual,* and an individual into which *many things are converted* in their own right. For as an *individual,* it is in heaven only in its proper and definite place. But because *many things are converted* into it, it does not have the term of its substance limited to one place, but extends itself to the place of conversion[^7]. And because the places of conversion cannot be all places nor one place only, but rather many; with regard to this it is neither immensely, like God, nor altogether definitively, like some individual, but in a *middle way,* just as God according to the mode of being by *grace* is not in all things, but in many.

If therefore the reason be asked, why the body of Christ is in many places; I believe that this is the reason, namely that many things are converted into it whole and in many *places.* — If it be asked why many; it must be said that the Lord instituted it. And if the *reason of the institution* be asked; it must be said that, because it is a spiritual and common food, it is therefore fitted to feed many, and therefore many things are converted into it; and it has the *aptitude* for feeding spiritually from its union with the Divinity, but the *act* from its existence under the Sacrament: and so it was instituted that many things should be converted into that body, and this under the Sacrament[^8].

1. To what is objected first about the individual, the answer is evident: because beyond the account of an individual it has this, that many things are converted into it in diverse places. Hence just as an individual into which other things can be converted in part can be in a *greater place;* so that into which other things are converted totally in diverse places can be in *many places.*

2. To the other the response is evident, because conversion cannot take place in all places, because the priest would not have a place, for whose ministry it comes about. But supposing per impossibile that there were only three places; then it must be said that it would be everywhere, but not as God, because God is everywhere on account of his immensity, whence he can be absent from none; but the body of Christ would be everywhere on account of the fewness of the places.

3. To what is objected about the motion of translation, it must be said that the body of Christ holds the mean between immense being and definite being; and therefore in a certain way it is *immobile,* and in a certain way *mobile:* mobile indeed in one place and immobile in another; and in the same host it is not moved at the motion of the parts, neither in itself nor by accident, unless the whole host is transferred. If therefore it were *simply* changed and altogether, the argument would hold; but this has no truth.

la: Ex codd. W Y supplevimus *si in pluribus locis consecratur.*

en: From codices W Y we have supplied *if it is consecrated in many places.*

la: Codd. E T U *definitivum.*

en: Codices E T U read *definitivum.*

la: Secundum Aristot., 1. Poster. c. 24. (c. 31.), ubi etiam docet, *universale esse quod semper et ubique est.*

en: According to Aristotle, *Posterior Analytics* I, c. 24 (c. 31), where he also teaches that *the universal is that which is always and everywhere.*

la: Plures codd. et Vat. *definitivum.*

en: Several codices and the Vatican edition read *definitivum.*

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 37. p. I. a. 2. q. 1. — Cod. F *communicari.*

en: Cf. I Sentences, d. 37, p. I, a. 2, q. 1. — Codex F reads *communicari.*

la: Libr. IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 44. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 451, nota 10, ubi allegatur c. 8. et 27.

en: Book IV of *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar,* c. 44. Cf. vol. III, p. 451, note 10, where c. 8 and 27 are cited.

la: Sola Vat. hic addit *secundum se,* iisdem verbis paulo post omissis, ubi opponuntur locutioni *secundum partem* (cfr. ad 1.).

en: The Vatican edition alone here adds *in itself,* the same words being omitted a little later, where they are opposed to the expression *in part* (cf. to the first reply).

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. ad 2. — Pro *terminum substantiae* codd. R aa (A a secunda manu) *tantum esse.* Inferius post *tertium sicut* cod. H addit *etiam.*

en: Cf. above, q. 1, to the second. — For *the term of its substance* codices R aa (A by a second hand) read *only being.* Further below, after *third just as,* codex H adds *also.*

latin_scholion:
<!-- page 222 -->

*De hac 3. quaestione:* Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 5. — Scot., hic q. 1. n. 13. — S. Thom., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 76. a. 3. — B. Albert., loc. cit. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. 2. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
*On this third question:* Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 3, § 5. — Scotus, here, q. 1, n. 13. — St. Thomas, here, a. 3, sub-question 3; Summa III, q. 76, a. 3. — Bl. Albert, in the place cited. — Peter of Tarentaise, here, q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here, a. 6, q. 1, 2. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here, q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 24887–25223), reflowed against the freshly re-extracted 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p22{0,1,2}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (vol4 column split x=1880; offset pdf = printed + 20). Vol IV is two-column, so the PDF bands are authoritative where the OCR cascade-fragments (Respondeo and footers especially).

**Running-head verification.** Recto pages 221 and 222's headmate band reads **"DIST. X. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. III."** (p.221 carries the printed folio "221"); the verso bands (pp. 220, 222) carry "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Distinction X, Pars I confirmed — not DIST. IX. Opener alignment confirmed: "Tertio quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit sub speciebus definitive" = *q3.* Raw range bounded by QUAESTIO III (L24884/body L24887) and QUAESTIO IV (L25224, excluded).

**Page-split map.**
- p.220: q3 begins at the foot of the verso (left column) — QUAESTIO III header, "Tertio quaeritur…", arguments 1–3 and the start of arg 4 / Contra. (The top of p.220 holds the tail of q2: its "Ad ultimum" + Reprobatur/Conclusio, which belong to a1-q2.)
- p.221: continuation of Contra (objections), Conclusio, full Respondeo + Notandum digression + replies 1–3 (body ends "sed hoc non habet veritatem"). Scholion begins at the foot of the left column.
- p.222: continuation of the Articulus-Unicus scholion (philosophical preliminaries I–II, observations, sect. III "De hac et seq. (4.) quaestione", sect. IV "Respectu 5. quaestionis"), then the q3-specific citation block "De hac 3. quaestione … Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3."

**Footer-ownership.** p.220 carries nine footers in two per-page sequences (L 1–2, R 3–9). Footers 1–6 anchor in **q2's** body (its arguments and "Ad ultimum"/Sacramento⁶ — left to a1-q2). Footers 7 (*consecratur*), 8 (*definitum*), 9 (Aristotle "hic et nunc") anchor in q3 and are carried here as [^1], [^2], [^3]. p.221 carries two sequences: 1–5 (anchors *definitum* / *convenire* / *Innocentius* / *individuum* / *conversionis*) and 6–8 (*Sacramento* / *esset ubique* / *per accidens*), all anchored in q3 — carried as [^4]–[^8]. Total q3 body footnotes = 11 anchors mapped to 8 distinct Quaracchi entries (markers 1 and 3 appear twice in the body: *definitive*/*definitum* and the "hic et nunc" pair; renumbered consecutively). The p.222 scholion footers (de loco / mensurae citations) belong to the **Articulus-Unicus scholion as a whole**, not to q3's body, and are carried with the divisio/scholion-bearing chunk rather than duplicated here.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The Articulus Unicus carries one long shared scholion (sections I–IV) printed across pp. 221–222 keyed to the whole article and to qq. 3–5. Per the brief, only the section keyed to **this** question is rendered here: the final block opening *"De hac 3. quaestione"* (a citation roster ending "Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3."). The general preliminaries (I–II) and the qq. 3–4 shared block (sect. III) and q5 block (sect. IV) are reserved for the Articulus-Unicus / divisio chunk.

**[?] flags.** None. All anchors and the q3 scholion block were legible in the 450 dpi bands and corroborated by the OCR footers.