title: Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 257 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae. Et quod sic, videtur.

1. Cyprianus[^1]: « Sicut in sanctificando calicem Domini offerri sola aqua non potest, sic nec vinum solum potest »; sed vinum est de integritate, et sine illo non potest esse Sacramentum: ergo nec sine aqua.

<!-- page 258 -->

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Sacramentum corporis non potest fieri in sola farina, nisi per commixtionem aquae fiat panis: ergo nec Sacramentum sanguinis sine commixtione aquae[^2].

3. Item, aut Dominus posuit[^3], aut non posuit; si posuit, et quod ipse instituit est de integritate Sacramenti, quia qui aliter facit nil facit: ergo etc. Si non posuit: ergo praesumtio fuit ponere.

4. Item, quod significat aliquid, quod est de substantia et principaliter in Sacramento, est de eius substantia; sed unio aquae cum vino significat unionem ad caput, ut dicit Beda[^4], et habetur in littera.

5. Item, vinum significat sanguinem, qui fluxit de latere Christi; sed non tantum sanguis fluxit, immo sanguis et aqua[^5]: ergo imperfectum est Sacramentum, nisi utrumque apponatur.

**Sed contra:** 1. Nihil est de substantia Sacramenti huius materialiter, quod non remanet neque secundum substantiam neque secundum accidentia; sed aqua est huiusmodi[^6]: ergo etc.

2. Item, elementum, quod est de substantia unius Sacramenti, non est de substantia alterius, cum sint Sacramenta distincta; sed aqua est materia baptismi: ergo non est de necessitate huius Sacramenti.

3. Item, omne quod est de substantia, aut est quantum ad significantiam, aut quantum ad efficaciam; non quantum ad significantiam[^7], quia debent significari corpus Christi verum et mysticum; et sanguis sufficienter significatur per vinum, et similiter unio corporis mystici. Nec quantum ad efficaciam, quia sine aqua est transsubstantiatio.

Item, quidquid sit de integritate, quaero de congruitate; et videtur, quod non sit congruum, aquam apponi:

6. Quia hoc Sacramentum est rei habentis omnis saporis suavitatem[^8]; sed aqua est insipida: ergo non congruit.

7. Item, pani nihil additur, ergo nec vino; vel si additur, quaeritur: quare?

8. Item, Dominus non legitur apposuisse: ergo videtur, quod non peccat qui non apponit, sed multo magis qui apponit.

Quod autem sit de necessitate et congruitate praecepti:

Cyprianus[^9]: « Nobis ignosci omnino non potest, qui admoniti sumus, ut calicem Domini cum vino et aqua mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus ».

Quaestio ergo est, si mortaliter peccat qui omittit.

> **Conclusio.** Admixtio aquae non est de integritate, sed de congruitate Sacramenti eucharistiae.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod de integritate Sacramenti huius sunt quatuor, scilicet materia et forma et ordo et intentio consecrantis; de congruitate autem et bene esse sunt quae sunt his annexa. Aqua ergo, cum non sit aliquid horum, non est de necessitate, sed annexum est materiae, scilicet vino, quia adiungitur vino et in ipsum convertitur et postmodum in sanguinem; et ideo est de congruitate. — Ratio autem huius connexionis est expressior significatio: quia aqua significat populum et per coniunctionem sui cum vino significat unitatem capitis cum membris; per vinum autem significatur unio membrorum ad invicem[^10]. — Rationes igitur ostendentes, quod aqua non sit de substantia Sacramenti concedendae sunt.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de Cypriano, dicendum, quod Cyprianus dicit, illud non posse fieri, quod non bene potest, vel non de iure potest. Unde Alexander[^11], ubi Cyprianus dicit *potest*, dicit *debet*.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de farina, dicendum, quod non est simile, quia farina non commixta sive per se non est cibus, sed vinum potus est per se.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum Dominus apposuerit; dicendum, quod sic[^12], sed non tanquam necessarium, sed tanquam congruum; et hoc patet, quia vinum erat, ex quo confecit: ergo aqua transierat in vinum, antequam conficeret; et quia apposuit, peccat qui non apponit, tamen nihilominus conficit.

<!-- page 259 -->

4. 5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unione, dicendum, quod illa unio significatur per vinum, quia significatur unio membrorum ad invicem, et per consequens ad caput, non tamen ita expresse; ideo congruit. — Similiter quod dicitur, quod fluxit simul; dicendum, quod per aquam illam non significatur aqua ista, nec e converso; sed aqua illa aquam baptismalem significat[^13]. — Vel potest dici, quod ex hoc innuitur, commiscendam aquam vino; unde illud fuit figura huius, non hoc Sacramentum illius; hic enim sanguis, non ille tantum, sed totus, qui fluxit de corpore, significatur et continetur[^14].

Ad illud quod quaeritur de congruitate, dicendum, quod est de congruitate.

6. Quod dicit de *insipiditate*, dicendum, quod significat populum, qui est insipidus et sapidus fit per coniunctionem cum Sapientia, Christo[^15], sicut aqua, cum adiungitur vino.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non commiscetur aliquid pani; dicendum, quod non est simile: quia non potest ei sic aliquid commisceri, ut transeat in ipsum, quia durius; propterea non habet virtutem conversivam, ut vinum. *Praeterea*[^16], principalius refertur ad significandam nostram redemptionem.

8. Ad aliud, dicendum, quod Dominus apposuit; et quidam hoc coniiciunt propter Domini sobrietatem, quod non biberit vinum purum, maxime forte, tale quale est in terra promissionis. Sed haec coniectura debilis est. — Sed scimus, quod Apostoli, qui Coenae Domini interfuerunt, ita Ecclesiae reliquerunt[^17]. Nec obiectio valet de Evangelio: quia non omnia scripta sunt; et ratio, quare de aqua non est scriptum, est, ne putetur *de substantia* Sacramenti; ne autem putetur praeter necessarium, fuit in passione Domini insinuatum, cum exivit sanguis et aqua[^18].

Et ideo peccat qui omittit, et qui ex haeresi, vel contemptu omitteret, peccaret mortaliter. Qui enim negligit ex hoc, quod nullam habet diligentiam, peccat mortaliter; qui negligit ex hoc, quod habet diligentiam semiplenam, peccat venialiter, sed tamen graviter peccat, quia hoc Sacramentum cum omni diligentia est consecrandum. Et quantum istud opus et hoc Sacramentum praecellit alia opera, tantum negligentia in hoc praeponderat aliis negligentiis[^19].

english:
### Question III. *Whether water belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist.*

Thirdly it is asked whether water belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist. And that it does, it seems.

1. Cyprian[^1]: "Just as in sanctifying the chalice of the Lord water alone cannot be offered, so neither can wine alone"; but wine belongs to its integrity, and without it there can be no Sacrament: therefore neither without water.

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so, because the Sacrament of the body cannot be made from flour alone, unless bread comes to be by the mixing in of water: therefore neither [can] the Sacrament of the blood [be made] without the mixing in of water[^2].

3. Likewise, either the Lord placed [it there][^3], or he did not; if he placed it, and what he himself instituted belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament, because he who does otherwise does nothing: therefore, etc. If he did not place it: then it was presumption to place it.

4. Likewise, that which signifies something which belongs to the substance and is principally in the Sacrament, belongs to its substance; but the union of water with wine signifies the union to the Head, as Bede says[^4], and as is found in the text.

5. Likewise, wine signifies the blood which flowed from the side of Christ; but not blood alone flowed, but rather blood and water[^5]: therefore the Sacrament is imperfect unless both are added.

**Sed contra:** 1. Nothing belongs materially to the substance of this Sacrament which does not remain either according to substance or according to accidents; but water is of this kind[^6]: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, an element which belongs to the substance of one Sacrament does not belong to the substance of another, since they are distinct Sacraments; but water is the matter of baptism: therefore it does not belong to the necessity of this Sacrament.

3. Likewise, everything that belongs to the substance is so either as regards signification or as regards efficacy; not as regards signification[^7], because the true and the mystical body of Christ must be signified; and the blood is sufficiently signified by the wine, and likewise the union of the mystical body. Nor as regards efficacy, because transubstantiation [occurs] without water.

Likewise, whatever may belong to the integrity, I ask about the fittingness; and it seems that it is not fitting for water to be added:

6. Because this Sacrament is of a thing that has the sweetness of every savor[^8]; but water is tasteless: therefore it is not fitting.

7. Likewise, nothing is added to the bread, therefore neither to the wine; or if it is added, it is asked: why?

8. Likewise, the Lord is not read to have added [it]: therefore it seems that he does not sin who does not add [it], but much more he who adds [it].

But that it belongs to the necessity and fittingness of the precept:

Cyprian[^9]: "It can in no way be forgiven us, who have been admonished to offer the chalice of the Lord mixed with wine and water, according as the Lord offered it."

The question, therefore, is whether he who omits [it] sins mortally.

> **Conclusion.** The mixing in of water does not belong to the integrity, but to the fittingness, of the sacrament of the Eucharist.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that four things belong to the integrity of this Sacrament, namely matter and form and order and the intention of the one consecrating; but to its fittingness and well-being belong the things that are annexed to these. Water, therefore, since it is none of these, does not belong to its necessity, but is annexed to the matter, namely to the wine, because it is joined to the wine and is converted into it and afterward into the blood; and therefore it belongs to the fittingness. — Now the ground of this connection is a more expressive signification: because water signifies the people and through its conjunction with the wine signifies the unity of the Head with the members; while through the wine is signified the union of the members with one another[^10]. — The reasons, therefore, showing that water does not belong to the substance of the Sacrament are to be granted.

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning Cyprian, it must be said that Cyprian says that that cannot be done which cannot be done well, or cannot be done by right. Hence Alexander[^11], where Cyprian says *can*, says *ought*.

2. To that which is objected concerning flour, it must be said that it is not similar, because flour not mixed or by itself is not food, but wine is drink by itself.

3. To that which is objected, whether the Lord added [it]; it must be said that he did[^12], yet not as something necessary, but as something fitting; and this is clear, because it was wine from which he made [it]: therefore the water had passed into wine before he made [it]; and because he added [it], he sins who does not add [it], yet nonetheless he confects.

4. 5. To that which is objected concerning the union, it must be said that that union is signified by the wine, because the union of the members with one another is signified, and consequently to the Head, yet not so expressly; therefore it is fitting. — Likewise, as to what is said, that it flowed at the same time; it must be said that by that water this water is not signified, nor conversely; but that water signifies the water of baptism[^13]. — Or it can be said that by this it is intimated that water is to be mixed with wine; whence that was a figure of this, not this Sacrament a figure of that; for here [is] the blood, not that alone, but the whole that flowed from the body, which is signified and contained[^14].

To that which is asked concerning the fittingness, it must be said that it belongs to the fittingness.

6. As to what he says concerning *tastelessness*, it must be said that it signifies the people, who are tasteless and become savory through conjunction with Wisdom, Christ[^15], just as water [becomes savory] when it is joined to the wine.

7. To that which is objected, that nothing is mixed into the bread; it must be said that it is not similar: because something cannot be so mixed into it as to pass over into it, because it is too hard; on which account it does not have a converting power, as wine does. *Moreover*[^16], it [the wine] is more principally referred to the signifying of our redemption.

8. To the other, it must be said that the Lord did add [it]; and some conjecture this on account of the Lord's sobriety, that he did not drink pure wine, especially perhaps such as it is in the land of promise. But this conjecture is weak. — But we know that the Apostles, who were present at the Lord's Supper, so handed it down to the Church[^17]. Nor does the objection from the Gospel hold: because not all things are written; and the reason why nothing is written about the water is, lest it be thought to be *of the substance* of the Sacrament; but lest it be thought beyond what is necessary, it was intimated in the Lord's passion, when blood and water came forth[^18].

And therefore he sins who omits [it], and he who omitted it out of heresy or contempt would sin mortally. For he who neglects [it] from this, that he has no diligence, sins mortally; he who neglects [it] from this, that he has half-full diligence, sins venially, yet nonetheless sins gravely, because this Sacrament is to be consecrated with all diligence. And by how much this work and this Sacrament excels other works, by so much does negligence in it outweigh other negligences[^19].

la: Epist. 63. n. 13. Cfr. C. *Sic in sanctificando* (2.), de Consecrat. d. 2. — *Minor* ostensa est supra q. 1. 2.

en: *Letter* 63, n. 13. Cf. the canon *Sic in sanctificando* (2.), *On Consecration* d. 2. — The *minor* [premise] was shown above in qq. 1, 2.

la: Arg. est secundum Cyprianum, hic in lit. Magistri, c. 5, relatum.

en: The argument is according to Cyprian, reported here in the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Cod. X supplet *aquam.*

en: Codex X supplies *water.*

la: Expos. in Marc. 14, 23: Quia et nos in Christo, et in nobis Christum manere oportet, vino dominici calicis aqua miscetur; attestante enim Ioanne (Apoc. 17, 15.), aquae populi sunt. — In lit. Magistri, cfr. hic c. 5. — Post *unionem* cod. L addit *corporis*, edd. *membrorum.*

en: *Exposition on Mark* 14, 23: Because it behooves both us to remain in Christ and Christ in us, water is mixed with the wine of the Lord's chalice; for, as John attests (Rev. 17, 15), the waters are peoples. — In the text of the Master, cf. here c. 5. — After *union* codex L adds *of the body*, the editions *of the members.*

la: Cfr. infra dub. 6, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29, ubi dicit: Oportet quidem, quod tantum vini ibi ponatur, quod aqua commixtum saporem vini retineat.

en: Cf. below dub. 6, and Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 29, where he says: It is indeed necessary that only so much water be put there that, mixed in, it retains the savor of the wine.

la: Supple: aqua est de substantia Sacramenti. — De hac propos. cfr. supra q. 1. seq., et de ultima huius arg. vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Superius post *de substantia* codd. O X supplent *Sacramenti.*

en: Supply: water belongs to the substance of the Sacrament. — Concerning this proposition cf. above q. 1 ff., and concerning the last [part] of this argument see here the text of the Master, c. 5. — Above, after *of the substance* codices O X supply *of the Sacrament.*

en: Wisdom 16, 20.

la: Epist. 63. n. 17. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: *Letter* 63, n. 17. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Cfr. supra q. 1.

en: Cf. above q. 1.

la: In C. *In Sacramentorum oblationibus* (1.), de Consecrat. d. 2: Non enim debet, ut a Patribus accepimus, et ipsa ratio docet, in calice Domini aut vinum solum, aut aqua sola offerri, sed utrumque permixtum, quia utrumque ex latere eius in passione sua profluxisse legitur. Cfr. infra dub. 6, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 32.

en: In the canon *In Sacramentorum oblationibus* (1.), *On Consecration* d. 2: For neither wine alone nor water alone ought to be offered in the chalice of the Lord—as we have received from the Fathers, and reason itself teaches—but both mixed together, because both are read to have flowed from his side in his passion. Cf. below dub. 6, and Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 32.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 5, verba Cypriani et infra ad 8. — Pro *apposuerit* permulti codd. et ed. 1 *posuerit.*

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 5, the words of Cyprian, and below at [reply] 8. — For *added* very many codices and the first edition [read] *placed.*

la: Hanc rationem tangit Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29. — Superius post *fluxit simul* codd. X supplent *aqua.*

en: Innocent III touches this reason, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 29. — Above, after *flowed at the same time* codices X supply *water.*

la: Vide supra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. in fine corp. et ad 5.

en: See above d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2, at the end of the body and at reply 5.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 1, 20. seqq., et Hebr. 2, 11.

la: Codd. L Y *Est etiam alia ratio, quia vinum* [conversum in Christi sanguinem, cuius effusione redempti sumus; cfr. Eph. 1, 7, et I. Petr. 1, 19.]. Pro *durius* edd. *durior.*

en: Codices L Y [read] *There is also another reason, because the wine* [is converted into the blood of Christ, by whose pouring out we have been redeemed; cf. Eph. 1, 7, and 1 Pet. 1, 19]. For *too hard* the editions [read] *harder.*

la: Cfr. Liturgiae tum Iacobi sive Hierosolymitana, tum Marci sive Alexandrina. Vide etiam supra pag. 194, nota 1. Inferius respicitur Ioan. 20, 30. et 21, 23. — Paulo superius pro *biberit* non pauci codd. *biberet.*

en: Cf. the Liturgies both of James, or the Jerusalem [liturgy], and of Mark, or the Alexandrian. See also above p. 194, note 1. Below, John 20, 30 and 21, 23 are referred to. — A little above, for *drank* not a few codices [read] *would drink.*

la: Vide infra dub. 6. — De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See below dub. 6. — Concerning this very question, see the scholion on question 1 of this article.

latin_scholion:
Cf. the scholion (sections I–III) rendered with **Articulus I, Quaestio I** (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`), which covers questions 1–4 of this article together. Footnote 7 of p. 259 above expressly refers the reader there: *De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*

---

english_scholion:
See the scholion (sections I–III) rendered with **Article I, Question I** (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`), which treats questions 1–4 of this article together. Footnote 7 of p. 259 above expressly refers the reader there: *Concerning this very question, see the scholion on question 1 of this article.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 257–259; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 29008–29195, which run on into QUAESTIO IV at the tail) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The contra arguments, Respondeo, the eight solutions, and all footers were cascade-shattered / column-interleaved in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The chunk opener (`Tertio quaeritur, utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae`) is the article's QUAESTIO III, confirmed against the PDF (p.257 R column: QUAESTIO III header, *Utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae*). Aligned. The "Tertio quaeritur" opener correctly matches q3.

**Running heads.** p.257 R top = "QUAEST. III. 257"; p.258 L top = "258 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p.259 L top = "DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I. QU[AEST.]" / p.259 R top = "QUAEST. IV. 259". Page-verify passes (DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I.); the q3/q4 boundary falls on p.259 (QUAESTIO IV begins low on p.259, owned by a1-q4).

**Page span.** q3 spans printed pp. **257–259**. The skeleton frontmatter omitted printed_pages; set to [257, 258, 259]. q3 opens at the bottom of p.257 (QUAESTIO III header + Cyprian arg. 1), runs through all of p.258, and closes near the top of p.259 R column (`...negligentiis`), just before QUAESTIO IV.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership (per-page restart).**
- **p.257**: only note **12** (`Epist. 63. n. 13…`) is anchored in q3's body (arg. 1, *Cyprianus*) → [^1]. Notes 1–11 of p.257 anchor in q2's epilogue/solutio and belong to **a1-q2** (the q2 writer's hand-off confirmed its notes 7+ stay with q2; only note 12 migrates here).
- **p.258**: notes **1–11** are all anchored in q3's body (videtur args 2–8, sed contra, Respondeo, solutions 1–3) → [^2]–[^12].
- **p.259**: notes **1–7** are anchored in q3's solution tail (args 4–8, De praecepto) → [^13]–[^19]. Notes 8–14 of p.259 anchor in QUAESTIO IV's body and belong to **a1-q4**.

**Hand-off received.** Per the q2 writer's report, p.257 R-column footers nn.7–11 (anchoring q2's epilogue "...necessitatem¹¹") were retained by q2; only p.257 n.12 (the QUAESTIO III opener) was claimed here. Confirmed against the PDF — no q3 footer was stranded in q2.

**Hand-off forwarded.** p.259 notes 8–14 belong to a1-q4 (the QUAESTIO IV neighbor): note 8 anchors at q4 *frumento*, etc. a1-q4 should claim them.

**Scholion disposition.** q3 renders **no** scholion of its own. The Articulus I scholion (sections I–III, covering qq. 1–4) is rendered with QUAESTIO I (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`); section II of that scholion treats the 3rd question. A one-line cross-reference (La + En) is given under `### Scholion` here, anchored by p.259 footnote 7's explicit pointer. No distinct "SCHOLION." header falls within this chunk's raw range. `has_scholion: false`.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4

title_alt: Whether this sacrament can be confected in every bread and wine

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 259 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae possit confici in omni pane et vino.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum possit confici in omni pane et vino. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia est cibus communis: ergo debet fieri in materia communi, sicut baptismus, propter excusationem pauperum[^1]: ergo in omni pane et in omni vino, quae habent rationem reficiendi et potandi.

2. Item ostenditur, quod possit confici in pane et vino corrupto, quia dicit Innocentius[^2]: « Etsi diligenti studio vinum optimum sit quaerendum, vitium tamen vini non maculat munditiam Sacramenti »; eadem ratione nec panis: ergo etc.

3. Item ostenditur, quod in pane et vino mixto: quia, sicut vino commiscetur aqua, ita granis frumenti commisceri possunt alia grana; sed in vino mixto aqua fit et debet fieri Sacramentum[^3]: ergo similiter in frumento potest.

4. Item, quod in omni aqua, videtur: quia omnis aqua potest converti in vinum[^4], et conversa potest converti in sanguinem: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Quia, sicut Dominus baptizando dedit vim regenerativam aquis[^5], ita consecrando instituit huius Sacramenti materiam; sed consecravit in pane de frumento, quia ille est solum cibus paschalis, et in vino vitis: ergo etc.

2. Item, quod nec in vino nec in pane corrupto, videtur: quia vinum corruptum non est vinum, sicut homo mortuus non est homo — unde « acetum, ut dicit Philosophus in octavo Metaphysicae[^6] nec est vinum nec potest esse » — similiter de pane: ergo etc.

3. Item, quod nec de mixto, videtur: quia « mixtio est miscibilium alteratorum unio[^7] », unde in mixtione transmutantur formae mixtorum, et resultat tertium: ergo vinum mixtum non est vinum, et similiter panis: ergo etc.

<!-- page 260 -->

4. Item, quod non in aqua non naturali, videtur: quia baptismus, qui est Sacramentum necessitatis, non potest[^8]: ergo nec illud, quod debet fieri solemnius.

> **Conclusio.** Eucharistiae Sacramentum non potest confici nisi in alio pane quam de tritico, nec in alio vino quam de vite.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod materia congrua huic Sacramento de natura sua est panis de frumento et vinum de vite; propter hoc quod iste cibus inter omnes cibos, et potus ille inter omnes potus est convenientior, efficacior, sanior et communior. Et ideo Dominus se grano frumenti comparavit, Ioannis duodecimo[^9]; et ligno vitis, Ioannis decimo quinto; et ex hac causa in his duabus speciebus confecit et conficiendo instituit. Ideo in alio pane quam de frumento, vel in alio vino quam de vite non potest confici; et hoc determinavit Concilium Carthaginense[^10]. In omni autem pane de frumento, sicut in omni vino de vite, sive ibi sit differentia accidentalis, sive specifica, ut dicunt quidam, potest confici, salvata specie illius panis et illius vini.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de omni pane propter communitatem; dicendum, quod non tantum communitas, sed etiam congruitas est hic consideranda. Praeterea, baptismus est Sacramentum necessitatis, sed illud non; ideo non est simile. Praeterea, « omnis aqua naturaliter omni aquae est eadem specie[^11] », non sic omne bladum.

2. Ad illud quod quaeritur de corruptione, dicendum, quod est quaedam corruptio a statu optimo, non tamen ab esse simpliciter, ut puta quando vinum turbatur vel acescit; quaedam est corruptio ab esse simpliciter, ut quando simpliciter desinit habere formam panis et vini, ut quando perfecte conversum est in acetum. Prima corruptio non tollit potentiam conficiendi, sed secunda tollit. Haec autem corruptio poterit discerni per gustum ab illis qui noscunt naturas rerum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de mixtione, dicendum, quod mixtio dicitur dupliciter, scilicet communiter et proprie: communiter, quando miscetur aliquid alicui alterius naturae, quod tamen non habet proportionem, sed illud tanquam praedominans solvit speciem et convertit in se; et tunc non est mixtio proprie, et talis potest esse in hoc Sacramento. Et de hac dicitur in fine primi de Generatione[^12], quod si « gutta aquae misceatur amphorae vini, non est mixtio, quia solvitur species ». — Est secunda alia mixtio, proprie dicta « miscibilium alteratorum unio »; et haec repugnat. Unde tot grana possunt commisceri granis frumenti, et tantum de aqua vino, quod alterant[^13] a suis naturalibus saporibus; et haec mixtio tollit potentiam conficiendi. Et ideo frumenti grana diligenter sunt secernenda, et valde parum de aqua est apponendum, maxime quando vinum est debile.

4. Ad illud quod ultimo quaeritur de aqua, dicendum, quod non aqua rosacea, nec artificialis, sed solum naturalis, quae dicitur aqua viva, est apponenda; et si apponatur alia aqua, ut transeat in vinum, fit Sacramentum; sed ille qui apponit, peccat, sicut ille qui omittit ponere aquam. Quod enim aqua significat populum[^14], hoc est ratione multitudinis; et talis est aqua non artificialis, sed naturalis.

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the sacrament of the Eucharist can be confected in every bread and wine.*

Fourthly it is asked whether this sacrament can be confected in every bread and wine. And that it can, it seems:

1. Because it is a common food: therefore it ought to be made in a common matter, like baptism, for the relief of the poor[^1]: therefore in every bread and in every wine, which have the character of refreshing and of being drunk.

2. Likewise it is shown that it can be confected in corrupt bread and wine, because Innocent says[^2]: "Although the best wine is to be sought with diligent care, yet a defect of the wine does not stain the cleanness of the Sacrament"; by the same reasoning neither does [a defect of] the bread: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise it is shown [that it can be made] in mixed bread and wine: because, just as water is mingled with wine, so other grains can be mingled with grains of wheat; but in mixed wine the Sacrament is made and ought to be made[^3]: therefore likewise it can [be made] in wheat.

4. Likewise, that [it can be made] in every water, it seems: because every water can be converted into wine[^4], and when converted it can be converted into blood: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. Because, just as the Lord by baptizing gave a regenerative power to the waters[^5], so by consecrating he instituted the matter of this Sacrament; but he consecrated in bread of wheat, because that alone is the paschal food, and in wine of the vine: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, that [it can] not [be made] either in wine or in corrupt bread, it seems: because corrupt wine is not wine, just as a dead man is not a man — whence "vinegar," as the Philosopher says in the eighth book of the *Metaphysics*[^6], "is neither wine nor can it be" — similarly of bread: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, that [it can] not [be made] of a mixture, it seems: because "a mixture is the union of mixable things that have been altered[^7]," whence in a mixture the forms of the mixed things are transmuted, and a third thing results: therefore mixed wine is not wine, and similarly [mixed] bread [is not bread]: therefore, etc.

<!-- page 260 -->

4. Likewise, that [it can] not [be made] in non-natural water, it seems: because baptism, which is a Sacrament of necessity, cannot [be made in it][^8]: therefore neither can that which ought to be made more solemnly.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be confected except in no other bread than of wheat, nor in any other wine than of the vine.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the matter suited to this Sacrament is by its nature bread of wheat and wine of the vine; on account of this, that this food among all foods, and that drink among all drinks, is the more fitting, more efficacious, more wholesome, and more common. And therefore the Lord compared himself to a grain of wheat, in John 12[^9]; and to the wood of the vine, in John 15; and for this reason he confected, and in confecting instituted, [the Sacrament] in these two species. Therefore in another bread than of wheat, or in another wine than of the vine, it cannot be confected; and this the Council of Carthage determined[^10]. But in every bread of wheat, just as in every wine of the vine, whether there be there an accidental difference, or a specific one, as some say, it can be confected, the species of that bread and that wine being preserved.

**To the arguments:**

1. To that, then, which is objected concerning every bread on account of [its] commonness; it must be said that not only commonness, but also suitability, is here to be considered. Moreover, baptism is a Sacrament of necessity, but this [Sacrament] is not; therefore it is not alike. Moreover, "every water is naturally of the same species as every [other] water[^11]," not so every grain.

2. To that which is asked concerning corruption, it must be said that there is a certain corruption from the best state, yet not from being absolutely, as for instance when wine becomes turbid or sour; [and] there is a certain corruption from being absolutely, as when it absolutely ceases to have the form of bread and wine, as when it is perfectly turned into vinegar. The first corruption does not take away the power of confecting, but the second does take it away. Now this corruption can be discerned by taste by those who know the natures of things.

3. To that which is objected concerning mixture, it must be said that mixture is spoken of in two ways, namely commonly and properly: commonly, when something is mingled with something else of another nature, which however does not have a proportion [to it], but the latter, as predominant, dissolves the species and converts it into itself; and then it is not mixture properly, and such [mixture] can be in this Sacrament. And of this it is said at the end of the first book *On Generation*[^12], that if "a drop of water be mingled with an amphora of wine, it is not a mixture, because the species is dissolved." — There is a second, other mixture, properly so called, "the union of mixable things that have been altered"; and this is incompatible [with the Sacrament]. Whence so many grains can be mingled with grains of wheat, and so much water with wine, that they alter[^13] [them] from their natural flavors; and this mixture takes away the power of confecting. And therefore the grains of wheat are to be diligently separated out, and very little water is to be added, especially when the wine is weak.

4. To that which is asked lastly concerning water, it must be said that not rose-water, nor artificial [water], but only natural [water], which is called living water, is to be added; and if another water be added, [such] that it pass into the wine, the Sacrament is made; but he who adds it sins, just as he who omits to put in water. For that water signifies the people[^14], this is by reason of multitude; and such is the water that is not artificial, but natural.

la: Hanc rationem tangit Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29. — Superius post *fluxit simul* codd. O X supplent *aqua*.

en: Innocent III touches on this reasoning, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 29. — Above, after *flowed together* codices O X supply *water*.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 29.

en: Book IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 29.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in fine corp. et hic q. 1.

en: Cf. above d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. at the end of the body, and here q. 1.

la: Codd. L Y *Est etiam alia ratio, quia vinum [conversum in Christi sanguinem, cuius effusione redempti sumus; cfr. Eph. 1, 7, et I. Petr. 1, 19.]*. — Pro *durius* edd. *durior*.

en: Codices L Y [read] *There is also another reason, because wine [converted into the blood of Christ, by whose shedding we are redeemed; cf. Eph. 1:7, and 1 Pet. 1:19].* — For *more harshly* the editions [read] *more harsh*.

la: Cfr. Liturgiae tum Iacobi sive Hierosolymitana, tum Marci sive Alexandrina. Vide etiam supra pag. 194, nota 1. — Inferius respicitur Ioan. 20, 30. et 21, 25. — Paulo superius pro *biberit* non pauci codd. *biberet*.

en: Cf. the Liturgies both of James, or the Jerusalem [Liturgy], and of Mark, or the Alexandrian. See also above p. 194, note 1. — Lower down reference is made to John 20:30 and 21:25. — A little above, for *has drunk* not a few codices [read] *would drink*.

en: See below dub. 6. — Concerning this question itself see the scholion at q. 1 of this article.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. dub. 2.

en: Cf. above d. 3. p. II. dub. 2.

la: Vers. 24. — Seq. loc. est Ioan. 15, 1. Cfr. supra q. 1.

en: Verse 24. — The following passage is John 15:1. Cf. above q. 1.

la: Carthag. III. (a. 397) c. 24. Cfr. C. *In Sacramento* (5.), de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: Carthage III (a.d. 397) c. 24. Cf. the canon *In Sacramento* (5), *On Consecration* d. 2.

la: Aristot., I. Topic. c. 6. (c. 5.). — Edd. *naturalis* pro *naturaliter*.

en: Aristotle, *Topics* I. c. 6. (c. 5.). — The editions [read] *natural* for *naturally*.

la: Text. 88. (c. 10.). Vide infra dub. 5. — Superius post *proportionem* edd. addunt *in quanto*.

en: Text 88. (c. 10.). See below dub. 5. — Above, after *proportion* the editions add *in quantity*.

la: Ita edd. et plurimi codd.; supple: *ea*. Cod. II *alteratur*, codd. X aa melius *alterantur*, alius Oxoniensis *alteratur in*.

en: Thus the editions and very many codices; supply: *them*. Codex II [reads] *is altered*, codices X aa better *are altered*, another Oxford [codex reads] *is altered into*.

la: Cfr. supra q. 3, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 5. — Paulo ante pro *ut transeat* cod. aa *si transeat*.

en: Cf. above q. 3, and here the text of the Master, c. 5. — A little before, for *that it pass* codex aa [reads] *if it pass*.

latin_scholion:
*Vide scholion ad q. 1 huius articuli (bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1), ubi articuli scholion (de quaestionibus I–IV) integre redditur.*

---

english_scholion:
*See the scholion at q. 1 of this article (bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1), where the article's scholion (on questions I–IV) is rendered in full.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 259–260; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 29196–29330) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, Conclusio, Solutio, and all footers were cascade-shattered in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener confirmed: "Quarto quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum possit confici in omni pane et vino" — matches the chunk title (q4). Aligned. The question header *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae possit confici in omni pane et vino* is printed on p.259 (lower left column); the chunk-title variant *Utrum in omni pane et vino possit confici hoc Sacramentum* (frontmatter) is retained per the dispatch brief.

**Running head.** p.259 recto top = **"DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I. QU[AEST]. IV."** — page-verify PASSES (correct distinction XI, pars II, art. I). p.260 verso top = "260 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line, as expected for verso).

**Page span.** The chunk spans printed pp. **258–260**, but q4's *body* occupies only pp.259–260: the question header + affirmative args 1–4 and *Sed contra* 1–4 sit in p.259's two columns; the Conclusio, Respondeo, and the four solutions run p.259 R → p.260 L → p.260 R, closing just before ARTICULUS II (which opens lower on p.260: *De modo, quo Christus confecit*). Page 258 carries only q3's tail and is owned by **bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q3** — listed in `printed_pages` for completeness since the OCR range opens at the p.258/259 seam, but no q4 body or footer text is on p.258.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 14 footnotes are claimed (markers [^1]–[^14]). **p.259 (per-page restart) notes 1–7** are anchored in q4's left-column affirmative args (n1→*excusationem pauperum*, n2→Innocentius/*munditiam Sacramenti*, n3→mixto *Sacramentum*, n4→*converti in vinum*, n5→*regenerativam aquis*, n6→*octavo Metaphysicae*, n7→mixtionis *unio*) → [^1]–[^7]. **p.259 notes 8–14** are anchored in the right-column *Sed contra* and the Respondeo/Solutio (n8→baptismus *non potest*, n9→*Ioannis duodecimo*, n10→Concilium *Carthaginense*, n11→*eadem specie*, n12→*primi de Generatione*, n13→*alterant*, n14→*significat populum*) → [^8]–[^14]. The dispatch hand-off flagged "p.259 nn.8–14 belong to q4"; on inspection **nn.1–7 are equally q4's** (the left-column affirmative-argument footers) and are claimed here too — the page's notes 1–14 are entirely q4's. **p.260 notes 1–5** are q4's solutio footers and supply the *content* of [^8]–[^12] above (p.260 n1 *Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. dub. 2*; n2 *Vers. 24*; n3 Carthag.; n4 Aristot. Topic.; n5 Text. 88 — these are the cross-page restart that repeats the per-page numbering); p.260 notes 6, 7 (*alterantur*; *Cfr. supra q. 3*) supply [^13], [^14]. (Where a body anchor on p.260 carries the p.260 footer, the marker is numbered by q4 body order, not by the printed per-page footer index — the corpus convention.)

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. Article I carries a single question-keyed scholion (sections I–IV) printed once for the whole article; per the dispatch brief it is rendered in full with **bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1**. Both `### Scholion` blocks here carry only a one-line Latin + English cross-reference to that chunk.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** ARTICULUS II (*De modo, quo Christus confecit*) opens on p.260 lower portion (both columns) with its *Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum… quaeruntur duo* divisio + QUAESTIO I (*Utrum Christus confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato*). Per the chunking convention, that short article-opener folds into ART II q1. **p.260 footers n8 (scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.), n9 (Vers. 17 / *Venit prima dies azymorum*), n10 (Vers. 12 / Luc. 22, 7) belong to ARTICULUS II, q. 1** and are NOT claimed here.

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. 11, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 260 -->

### Articulus II. *De modo, quo Christus confecit.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de modo, quo Christus confecit. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo: Primo quaeritur de modo conficiendi quoad signum exterius; Secundo, quoad contentum interius.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Christus confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato.*

Quaeritur ergo primum, utrum confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato. Et quod in azymo, videtur:

1. Matthaei vigesimo sexto[^1]: *Prima autem die azymorum* etc.

2. Item, Marci decimo quarto[^2]: *Et primo die azymorum*; et Lucae vigesimo secundo: *Venit autem dies azymorum, in quo necesse erat occidi pascha*; sed isto die non reperiebatur fermentatum in omnibus finibus Israel: cum ergo existens in domo Iudaeorum comederit pascha, non potuit conficere nisi in azymo.

<!-- page 261 -->

3. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Dominus non venit solvere Legem, sed adimplere[^3] mandata Legis; sed praeceptum erat, Exodi duodecimo et Deuteronomii decimo sexto, quod comederent pascha cum azymis: ergo comedit azyma. Sed de illo pane confecit, quem in Coena comederat: ergo etc.

4. Item, Dominus debuit eo modo conficere, quo magis Sacramento conveniret; sed azymum ratione integritatis magis convenit huic Sacramento: ergo in pane azymorum debuit conficere; unde primae ad Corinthios quinto[^4]: *Non in fermento veteri, sed in azymis*.

**Contra:**
1. hoc est, quod Dominus praevenit diem azymorum; sed ante illum diem non comedebant azyma: ergo etc. Quod autem praevenerit, ostenditur: quia, si figurae debet veritas respondere; cum agnus, qui erat figura huius, immolaretur decima quarta luna[^5]; Christus fuit crucifixus decima quarta luna, sed ante diem crucifixionis confecit: ergo in fermento.

2. Hoc ipsum probatur *auctoritate*, quia dicitur Ioannis decimo octavo[^6]: *Non introierunt in praetorium, ut non contaminarentur, sed manducarent pascha*: ergo ante ductus est ad passionem, quam manducaretur pascha: ergo praevenit: ergo idem quod prius.

3. Item, dies festus paschae dicitur prima dies, in qua manducabatur pascha; sed Ioannis decimo tertio[^7] *ante diem paschae* dicitur quod fecit coenam cum discipulis suis: ergo etc.

4. Item, hoc ipsum probatur per Lucam vigesimo tertio[^8], ubi dicitur, quod mulieres in die crucifixionis *aromata paraverunt*, in sequenti quieverunt; et Glossa dicit, quod non licebat aliquid parare secundum Legem: ergo magnus dies festus fuit in sequenti crucifixionis; sed magnus dies festus erat prima dies azymorum: ergo etc.

5. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia, si Dominus noluit, nos ritum Iudaeorum servare; videtur, quod nec ipse servaverit: ergo non confecit in azymis.

Iuxta hoc quaeritur de controversia Graecorum et Latinorum, unde venerit; et videtur, quod non poterit esse; quia ipsi acceperunt ab Apostolis, et Apostoli ab uno[^9] Domino: ergo vel Apostoli erraverunt, vel Graeci finxerunt. — Quaeritur etiam, qui melius faciunt; et utrum utrique bene faciant, cum aliqui modum Domini non teneant.

> **Conclusio.** Christus consecravit in pane azymo, non in pane fermentato.

**Respondeo:** Ad primum dicendum, quod Dominus pascha celebravit decima quarta luna; unde non praevenit, sicut expresse tres Evangelistae concordant, nec praevenire debuit. Si ergo manducatio agni typici est evacuata per manducationem Agni veri[^10], manducatio Agni veri debuit illam sequi, non praeire. Unde quia in luna decima quarta pascha fecit, quando tantum comedebantur azyma, patet conclusio, quod in azymo confecerit.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod praevenit, quia crucifixus est decima quarta luna; respondent quidam, quod luna decima quarta est crucifixus, quia solemnitates durant a sero usque ad aliud sero[^11]; unde primo sero comedit agnum, et antequam veniret alterum sero, est crucifixus. — Aliter dicitur et melius, quod passio eius inchoata est statim post Coenam, quia fuit in agonia et fuit comprehensus etc.; unde optime est factum, quod agni comestio et ipsius immolatio facta est decima quarta luna, non quia consummata, sed inchoata[^12].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non introierunt praetorium, ut non contaminarentur; dicendum, quod pascha tribus modis accipitur. Uno modo pascha *cibus paschalis* dicitur, ut azyma, quae per septem dies comedebantur a Iudaeis[^13]. Alio modo pascha dicitur *agnus paschalis*, Lucae vigesimo secundo: *In qua necesse erat occidi pascha*. Tertio modo dicitur pascha *Agnus verus*, primae ad Corinthios quinto: *Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus*. Et primo modo accipitur in Ioanne.

3. 4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de die festo, dicendum, quod illi septem dies omnes erant dies festi; sed primus erat per excellentiam festus dies, hoc est decima quinta; amplius maiori excellentia Sabbatum, quod erat inter illos dies festos, in quo

<!-- page 262 -->

nihil debebant parare, tum propter suam celebritatem, tum propter azyma. Quod ergo dicit Ioannes, loquitur de die decima quinta, ante quam facta est coena. Quod autem dicunt Iudaei: *Non in die festo*[^14]; intelligitur de Sabbato. — Similiter, quod mulieres quiescunt, hoc est ob reverentiam Sabbati, non quia primus dies, quia in primo die aliquid parare[^15], sed in Sabbato parare nil licebat.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Dominus non debuit facere nos iudaizare; dicendum, quod Dominus de Lege non retinuit, sed de novo instituit; sicut patet de baptismo, quia illi aqua lustrabantur, et nos aqua lustramur; et hoc instituit, quia Sacramento congruebat.

Ad illud quod quaeritur de controversia Graecorum et Latinorum[^16], dicendum, quod sicut dicit Leo Papa[^17], antiqui Patres propter Iudaeorum institutionem, et quando error ille vigebat de legali observantia, decreverunt ex consilio Spiritus sancti cessare, quousque error ille minueretur, sicut decreverunt in Christi nomine baptizare. Unde omnis Ecclesia primo in azymis conficiebat, postmodum ex hac causa in fermentato. Sed cessante iam illa causa, rediit iam Romana Ecclesia ad ritum pristinum; Graeci vero, tanquam superbi, noluerunt ad ritum primum redire. Et ideo ex hoc ita coacti sunt defendere, primo dicentes, se ita accepisse; secundo vero, quia hoc non sufficiebat, addiderunt rationem: propter hoc, ne iudaizarent[^18]; tertio, quia hoc non sufficiebat, si Dominus in azymis confecisset, ausi sunt hoc dicere, quod Dominus confecit de fermentato. Et quia Evangelistae dicunt contrarium, ausi sunt dicere, quod falsum dixerunt et a Ioanne correpti sunt. — Ecce, quomodo « error parvus in principio, multus est in fine ». Tamen tam ipsi conficiunt quam nos; hoc enim non est de *substantia* Sacramenti, sed de *congruentia*. Et hoc patet ex imitatione vel institutione[^19] Sanctorum.

english:
### Article II. *On the manner in which Christ confected [the Eucharist].*

Consequently, as regards the second article, it is asked about the manner in which Christ confected. And concerning this, two things are asked: First, it is asked about the manner of confecting as regards the exterior sign; Second, as regards the interior content.

### Question I. *Whether Christ confected [the Eucharist] in unleavened or in leavened bread.*

It is asked, then, first, whether he confected in unleavened or in leavened bread. And that [he confected] in unleavened, it seems:

1. Matthew twenty-six[^1]: *Now on the first day of unleavened bread* etc.

2. Likewise, Mark fourteen[^2]: *And on the first day of unleavened bread*; and Luke twenty-two: *Now the day of unleavened bread came, on which it was necessary that the passover be killed*; but on that day no leaven was to be found in all the borders of Israel: since therefore, being in the house of the Jews, he ate the passover, he could not confect except in unleavened bread.

3. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because the Lord came not to abolish the Law, but to fulfill[^3] the commandments of the Law; but it was commanded, Exodus twelve and Deuteronomy sixteen, that they should eat the passover with unleavened bread: therefore he ate unleavened bread. But he confected of that bread which he had eaten at the Supper: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, the Lord ought to have confected in that manner which best suited the Sacrament; but unleavened bread, by reason of its integrity, best suits this Sacrament: therefore he ought to have confected in the bread of unleavened bread; whence First Corinthians five[^4]: *Not in the old leaven, but in unleavened bread*.

**On the contrary:**
1. this is so, that the Lord anticipated the day of unleavened bread; but before that day they did not eat unleavened bread: therefore, etc. And that he anticipated it is shown: because, if the truth ought to correspond to the figure; since the lamb, which was the figure of this, was immolated on the fourteenth moon[^5]; Christ was crucified on the fourteenth moon, but he confected before the day of the crucifixion: therefore in leavened bread.

2. This same thing is proved *by authority*, because it is said in John eighteen[^6]: *They entered not into the praetorium, that they might not be defiled, but might eat the passover*: therefore he was led to his passion before the passover was eaten: therefore he anticipated [it]: therefore the same as before.

3. Likewise, the festal day of the passover is called the first day, on which the passover was eaten; but in John thirteen[^7] it is said that *before the day of the passover* he made the supper with his disciples: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, this same thing is proved through Luke twenty-three[^8], where it is said that the women on the day of the crucifixion *prepared spices*, [and] on the following [day] rested; and the Gloss says that it was not permitted to prepare anything according to the Law: therefore a great festal day fell on the day following the crucifixion; but the great festal day was the first day of unleavened bread: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because, if the Lord did not wish that we should keep the rite of the Jews; it seems that he himself did not keep it either: therefore he did not confect in unleavened bread.

Connected with this, it is asked about the controversy of the Greeks and the Latins, whence it arose; and it seems that it cannot be; because they themselves received [it] from the Apostles, and the Apostles from one[^9] Lord: therefore either the Apostles erred, or the Greeks feigned. — It is also asked which act better; and whether both act well, since some do not hold the manner of the Lord.

> **Conclusion.** Christ consecrated in unleavened bread, not in leavened bread.

**Respondeo:** To the first it must be said that the Lord celebrated the passover on the fourteenth moon; whence he did not anticipate [it], just as the three Evangelists expressly agree, nor ought he to have anticipated [it]. If, therefore, the eating of the typical lamb is done away by the eating of the true Lamb[^10], the eating of the true Lamb ought to have followed it, not preceded [it]. Whence, because on the fourteenth moon he made the passover, when only unleavened bread was eaten, the conclusion is clear, that he confected in unleavened bread.

1. To that which is objected, that he anticipated [it], because he was crucified on the fourteenth moon; some respond that he was crucified on the fourteenth moon, because the solemnities last from one evening to another evening[^11]; whence on the first evening he ate the lamb, and before the other evening came, he was crucified. — Otherwise it is said, and better, that his passion began immediately after the Supper, because he was in agony and was seized, etc.; whence it was most fitting that the eating of the lamb and its immolation took place on the fourteenth moon, not because consummated, but because begun[^12].

2. To that which is objected, that they entered not the praetorium, that they might not be defiled; it must be said that "passover" is taken in three ways. In one way "passover" is called the *paschal food*, as the unleavened bread which was eaten by the Jews for seven days[^13]. In another way "passover" is called the *paschal lamb*, Luke twenty-two: *On which it was necessary that the passover be killed*. In a third way "passover" is called the *true Lamb*, First Corinthians five: *Christ our passover is sacrificed*. And in the first way it is taken in John.

3. 4. To that which is objected concerning the festal day, it must be said that all those seven days were festal days; but the first was by excellence the festal day, that is the fifteenth; further, by greater excellence the Sabbath, which fell among those festal days, on which

<!-- page 262 -->

they ought to prepare nothing, both because of its festivity and because of the unleavened bread. Therefore what John says speaks of the fifteenth day, before which the supper took place. But what the Jews say: *Not on the festal day*[^14]; is understood of the Sabbath. — Likewise, that the women rest, this is out of reverence for the Sabbath, not because it was the first day, since on the first day to prepare something [was permitted][^15], but on the Sabbath to prepare nothing was permitted.

5. To that which is objected, that the Lord ought not to make us judaize; it must be said that the Lord did not retain [this] from the Law, but instituted [it] anew; just as is clear from baptism, because they were washed with water, and we are washed with water; and he instituted this because it suited the Sacrament.

To that which is asked about the controversy of the Greeks and the Latins[^16], it must be said that, as Pope Leo[^17] says, the ancient Fathers, on account of the institution of the Jews, and when that error concerning legal observance was strong, decreed by the counsel of the Holy Spirit to cease, until that error should be diminished, just as they decreed to baptize in the name of Christ. Whence the whole Church first confected in unleavened bread, afterward, for this cause, in leavened bread. But that cause now ceasing, the Roman Church has now returned to the ancient rite; but the Greeks, as proud, were unwilling to return to the first rite. And so, thus driven, they were [led] to defend [it], first saying that they had so received [it]; but secondly, because this did not suffice, they added a reason: for this, lest they should judaize[^18]; thirdly, because this did not suffice, if the Lord had confected in unleavened bread, they dared to say this, that the Lord confected of leavened bread. And because the Evangelists say the contrary, they dared to say that they spoke falsely and were rebuked by John. — Behold, how "a small error in the beginning is great in the end." Yet they confect as much as we do; for this is not of the *substance* of the Sacrament, but of its *fittingness*. And this is clear from the imitation or institution[^19] of the Saints.

la: Vers. 17. — Plurimi codd. falso *Venit prima dies azymorum.*

en: Verse 17. — Very many codices wrongly [read] *The first day of unleavened bread came.* [p. 260, n. 9]

la: Vers. 12. — Seq. textus est Luc. 22, 7. — De minori *in omnibus finibus Israel* cfr. Exod. 13, 7. — In hoc arg. pro *existens*, quod praebent codd. HPQ (V primitus) Y, alii codd. et edd. *conficiens*, et pro *comederit* plures codd. *comedit*, edd. *voluit comedere.*

en: Verse 12. — The following text is Luke 22, 7. — On the lesser point *in all the borders of Israel* cf. Exod. 13, 7. — In this argument, for *existens* ("being"), which codices HPQ (V originally) Y give, other codices and the editions [read] *conficiens* ("confecting"), and for *comederit* very many codices [read] *comedit*, the editions *voluit comedere* ("wished to eat"). [p. 260, n. 10]

la: Vers. 8.

la: Exod. 12, 6: *Et servabitis eum usque ad quartam decimam diem mensis huius, immolabitque eum universa multitudo filiorum Israel ad vesperam.* Cfr. supra d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Exod. 12, 6: *And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of this month, and the whole multitude of the children of Israel shall immolate it toward evening.* Cf. above d. 8. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. [p. 261, n. 3]

la: Vers. 28. — De hac et seqq. obiectionibus cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 4, et Alger., II. de Sacram. c. 10, nec non Humbert. cardinalis (✝ 1064.), Adversus Graecor. calumnias.

en: Verse 28. — On this and the following objections cf. Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 4, and Alger, II *On the Sacraments* c. 10, and also Cardinal Humbert (✝ 1064), *Against the calumnies of the Greeks*. [p. 261, n. 4]

la: Vers. 1.

la: Vers. 56. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum.

en: Verse 56. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary [gloss] in Strabo. [p. 261, n. 6]

la: Vat. cum pluribus codd. *ab ipso.* Inferius post *aliqui* cod. X addit *illorum.*

en: The Vatican [edition], with very many codices, [reads] *ab ipso* ("from him"). Below, after *aliqui* ("some"), codex X adds *illorum* ("of them"). [p. 261, n. 7]

la: Edd. *est figura manducationis Agni veri.*

en: The editions [read] *is the figure of the eating of the true Lamb.* [p. 261, n. 8]

la: Cfr. Levit. 23, 32: *A vespera usque ad vesperam celebrabitis Sabbata vestra.* Vide etiam Exod. 12, 18.

en: Cf. Lev. 23, 32: *From evening to evening you shall celebrate your Sabbaths.* See also Exod. 12, 18. [p. 261, n. 9]

la: Ita exponitur a Glossa ordinaria (ex Beda) apud Strabum, in Luc. 22, 7.

en: Thus it is expounded by the ordinary Gloss (from Bede) in Strabo, on Luke 22, 7. [p. 261, n. 10]

la: Ut praecipitur Exod. 12, 18. — Seq. textus est Luc. 22, 7; tertius I. Cor. 5, 7.

en: As is enjoined Exod. 12, 18. — The following text is Luke 22, 7; the third [is] 1 Cor. 5, 7. [p. 261, n. 11]

la: Supple cum cod. H *licebat*; secunda manus in codd. EL addidit *poterant.* — Exod. 12, 16: *Dies prima erit sancta atque solemnis et dies septima..., nihil operis facietis in eis, exceptis his, quae ad vescendum pertinent.*

en: Supply with codex H *licebat* ("was permitted"); a second hand in codices EL added *poterant* ("they could"). — Exod. 12, 16: *The first day shall be holy and solemn, and the seventh day..., you shall do no work on them, except those things which pertain to eating.* [p. 262, n. 2]

la: Cfr. Anselm., de Azymo et ferment. c. 3, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 4.

en: Cf. Anselm, *On Unleavened and Leavened Bread* c. 3, and Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 4. [p. 262, n. 3]

la: Leo IX., qui primo huius controversiae meminit, hanc sententiam non habet, immo in epistolis ad Michaelem, Constantinopolitanum patriarcham (in ed. Migne epist. 100. n. 3. et 102.), et ad Constantinum Monomachum contrarium docet, arguens ipsum Michaelem hac in re tanquam novum Ecclesiae Latinae reprehensorem. Cfr. Innocent. III, loc. cit.

en: Leo IX, who first mentions this controversy, does not hold this view; rather in his letters to Michael, patriarch of Constantinople (in Migne's edition epist. 100. n. 3. and 102.), and to Constantine Monomachus he teaches the contrary, charging Michael himself in this matter as a novel reprover of the Latin Church. Cf. Innocent III, loc. cit. [p. 262, n. 4]

la: Cfr. supra solut. ad 2. et 3. — Superius pro *ne iudaizarent* cod. R *ne iudaizare viderentur.*

en: Cf. above the solution to 2 and 3. — Above, for *ne iudaizarent* ("lest they should judaize") codex R [reads] *ne iudaizare viderentur* ("lest they should seem to judaize"). [p. 262, n. 5]

la: Secundum Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 33. (c. 5.). — In fine solut. codd. BL omittunt *vel institutione*, et edd. male substituunt *Sacramentorum* pro *Sanctorum.*

en: According to Aristotle, *On the Heavens* I, text 33 (c. 5). — At the end of the solution codices BL omit *vel institutione* ("or institution"), and the editions wrongly substitute *Sacramentorum* ("of the Sacraments") for *Sanctorum* ("of the Saints"). [p. 262, n. 6]

latin_scholion:
**I.** Circa 1. quaestionem praenotanda est doctrina Ecclesiae de usu panis azymi et fermentati, quam proponit Concil. Florent. in Decreto unionis Graecorum his verbis: « In azymo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici; sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scilicet iuxta suae Ecclesiae, sive occidentalis, sive orientalis, consuetudinem ». Econtra Graeci schismatici, odio excaecati, consecrationem in azymo invalidam esse, irrationabiliter blaterant. — Deinde observandum est, etiam inter doctos Catholicos de tribus quaestionibus hic tactis et inter se cohaerentibus controversias exstitisse et adhuc existere: I. Quo praecise die Christus ultimum pascha celebraverit et eucharistiam instituerit. Communius et probabilius Catholici Latini ab antiquo respondebant, hoc factum esse iuxta morem Iudaeorum, agnum paschalem edentium luna 14. mensis Nisan desinente et 13. inchoante. Hoc ipsa verba Scripturae apud Matth. 26, 17; Marc. 14, 12; Luc. 22, 7. satis clare indicant. Graeci autem volunt, Christum anticipasse diem a Lege praescriptam et eucharistiam instituisse die 13, pro quo afferunt verba Ioannis 18, 28. (qui locus aliter et rationabiliter explicari potest; cfr. hic ad 2.), adduntque hanc rationem, quod hoc supposito, Christus mortuus sit eodem die, quo agnus paschalis solebat occidi. — 2. Utrum ipse Christus confecerit eucharistiam in *azymo*, ut dicunt Latini, an in *fermentato*, ut contendunt Graeci, qui hac praecipue ratione praenotatam opinionem de tempore institutionis defendunt; cui opinioni favet etiam Abaelardus (Serm. 11.). — 3. Quis fuerit quoad utramque speciem panis usus antiquus utriusque Ecclesiae. Praeter opinionem in resp. ad qq. incidentes positam et historice valde dubiam, quae ob haeresim Ebionitarum ritum mutatum esse dicit, quam cum ceteris Scholasticis etiam S. Thom. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3.) tenet, a viris in historia doctissimis tres aliae opiniones magno conatu studioque propugnatae sunt. Nam Iac. Sirmundus cum aliis propugnat usum *fermentati* in utraque Ecclesia usque ad ortum schismatis Graeci; post eum Mabillon (Dissertatio de pane eucharistico, rursus impressa apud Migne, Patrol. Lat. CXLIII. col. 1219, in appendice ad opera Humberti) defendit usum solius *azymi* in Ecclesia Romana a primis saeculis; denique Card. Bona, usum *utriusque* obtinuisse a tempore Apostolorum. Adhuc sub iudice lis est; tamen pro antiquo usu azymi gravissima argumenta militant. — De verbis Leoni papae tributis cfr. nota 4. ad calcem. Quod hic dicitur de Leone, Martinus Polonus in Chronico attribuit Alexandro I. (?) (cfr. Michaelis Lequien Ord. Praed. Dissert. 6. in libros Ioannis Damasc. apud Migne, Patrol. Graeca XCIV. col. 397 n. 36. seq.). De ipsa quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 1. § 3. — Scot., hic q. 6. n. 1. seqq. — S. Thom., loc. cit. S. III. q. 74. a. 4. — B. Albert., IV. d. 12. a. 8. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. 4. n. 10. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** Circa 2. quaestionem est notandum, quod opinio Hugonis, ab Alex. Hal. intellecta ut consentiens communi, a Gulielmo Antiss. aliisque reiicitur. — Circa quaestionem de casu, quando in triduo post mortem Sacramentum fuisset reservatum; responsio S. Bonaventurae ab aliis Scholasticis approbatur; cfr. Alex. Hal., loc. cit. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 5. 6; Scot., IV. Sent. d. 10. q. 6. n. 7. seqq., q. 4. n. 10. seqq.; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. S. III. q. 81. a. 4; B. Albert., hic a. 14. De ipsa 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 3. — Scot., qq. citt. — S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3; S. loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 12. a. 13. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 6. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 1. et 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 7.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the 1st question, the doctrine of the Church about the use of unleavened and leavened bread is to be noted beforehand, which the Council of Florence sets forth in the Decree of the union of the Greeks in these words: "that the body of Christ is truly confected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread; and that priests ought to confect the Lord's body in the one or the other, each according to the custom of his Church, whether Western or Eastern." On the contrary the schismatic Greeks, blinded by hatred, irrationally babble that consecration in unleavened bread is invalid. — Then it must be observed that even among learned Catholics controversies have existed and still exist concerning the three questions here touched on and mutually connected: I. On precisely which day Christ celebrated the last passover and instituted the Eucharist. The Catholic Latins more commonly and more probably answered from antiquity that this was done according to the custom of the Jews, who ate the paschal lamb at the ending of the 14th moon of the month Nisan and the beginning of the 13th. The very words of Scripture at Matt. 26, 17; Mark 14, 12; Luke 22, 7 indicate this clearly enough. But the Greeks hold that Christ anticipated the day prescribed by the Law and instituted the Eucharist on the 13th day, for which they adduce the words of John 18, 28 (which passage can be explained otherwise and reasonably; cf. here at the [reply] to 2), and they add this reason, that on this supposition Christ died on the same day on which the paschal lamb was wont to be killed. — 2. Whether Christ himself confected the Eucharist in *unleavened* bread, as the Latins say, or in *leavened*, as the Greeks contend, who chiefly by this argument defend the aforesaid opinion about the time of the institution; which opinion Abelard also favors (Serm. 11). — 3. What was the ancient usage of both Churches as to each species of bread. Besides the opinion set forth in the reply to the incidental questions and historically very doubtful, which says that the rite was changed on account of the heresy of the Ebionites, which along with the other Scholastics St. Thomas also holds (here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 3.), three other opinions have been defended by men most learned in history with great effort and zeal. For James Sirmond with others defends the use of *leavened* bread in both Churches up to the rise of the Greek schism; after him Mabillon (Dissertation on eucharistic bread, reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Lat. CXLIII, col. 1219, in the appendix to the works of Humbert) defends the use of *unleavened* bread alone in the Roman Church from the first centuries; finally Cardinal Bona, that the use of *both* obtained from the time of the Apostles. The case is still before the judge; yet for the ancient use of unleavened bread very weighty arguments fight. — On the words attributed to Pope Leo, cf. note 4 at the foot. What is here said of Leo, Martin of Poland in his Chronicle attributes to Alexander I (?) (cf. Michael Lequien O.P., Dissertation 6 on the books of John Damascene, in Migne, Patrol. Graeca XCIV, col. 397 n. 36 seq.). On this very question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 1. § 3. — Scotus, here q. 6. n. 1 ff. — St. Thomas, loc. cit. *Summa* III. q. 74. a. 4. — Bl. Albert, IV. d. 12. a. 8. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. subquestion 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 3. — Durandus, here q. 4. n. 10. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** Concerning the 2nd question it must be noted that the opinion of Hugh, understood by Alexander of Hales as agreeing with the common [opinion], is rejected by William of Auxerre and others. — Concerning the question of the case, when in the three days after [his] death the Sacrament should have been reserved; the response of St. Bonaventure is approved by the other Scholastics; cf. Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 5. 6; Scotus, IV Sent. d. 10. q. 6. n. 7 ff., q. 4. n. 10 ff.; St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 3. *Summa* III. q. 81. a. 4; Bl. Albert, here a. 14. On this very 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, q. 11. m. 2. a. 1. § 3. — Scotus, the questions cited. — St. Thomas, here q. 3. a. 3; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3. — Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 12. a. 13. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 6. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4. q. 1 and 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 7.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 260–262; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 29331–29622) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The two-column body, Respondeo, solutions, scholion, and all footers were cascade-shattered in OCR (diagonal one-token-per-line fragmentation + two-column bleed) and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The opener aligns: raw `Quaeritur ergo primum, utrum confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato` matches the prompt and the PDF (p.260 bottom: ARTICULUS II, *De modo, quo Christus confecit*; QUAESTIO I, *Utrum Christus confecerit in azymo, an in fermentato*). Per the d.1/d.10 convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener (`Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum… quaeruntur duo`) folds into this q1 — no standalone article-divisio chunk.

**Page span — CORRECTED.** The prompt estimated ~pp. 259–261; the actual span is **pp. 260–262**. Running heads confirm: p.259 + the upper columns of p.260 still carry "DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I." (the tail of Articulus I, q4, runs through p.260's columns); ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I opens at the bottom of p.260 (full-width header, with arg 1 + arg 2), runs through p.261 (running head "DIST. XI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I. 261"; args 3–5, Contra, controversia opener, Conclusio, Respondeo, solutions 1–3.4 start), and closes on p.262 (solution 3.4 tail + solution 5 + controversia answer + SCHOLION). QUAESTIO II begins on p.263. printed_pages = [260,261,262]; pdf_pages = [280,281,282] (offset +20).

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 19 footnotes. **Page 260** uses a single per-page footer sequence 1–10 shared with the preceding ARTICULUS I: notes 1–8 anchor in Art I q4 (the prior chunk's tail) and are NOT rendered here; only notes **9** (Matth 26:17, my arg 1) and **10** (Marc 14:12, my arg 2) anchor in this q1 → [^1], [^2]. **Page 261** restarts 1–11, all anchored in q1's body (args 3–4, Contra 1–4, controversia, Respondeo head, solutions 1–2) → [^3]–[^13]. **Page 262** restarts 1–6, all anchored in q1's tail (solution 3.4 + solution 5 + controversia answer) → [^14]–[^19]. All footers in raw range L29331–29622 are accounted for; the preceding ARTICULUS I / pars-divisio chunk owns p.260 nn.1–8 and everything before L29331.

**Scholion disposition — ARTICLE-LEVEL, covers the whole of Articulus II.** The SCHOLION printed on p.262 is keyed to the *article's three questions*, not q1 alone: section **I** = the 1st question (azymo vs. fermentato — this q1, on the day of institution and the bread used); section **II** = the 2nd question (Christ's own confecting + the triduum-reservation case — a2-q2 territory); a section **III** addressing the 3rd question continues on **p.263** (beyond this chunk's raw range L29331–29622, which ends at the close of section II). Per the prompt convention the scholion is rendered IN FULL here (body first, scholion last) because it is printed on q1's closing page and section I leads with q1. **Hand-off to q2 (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a2-q2`):** do NOT re-render this scholion — point to a2-q1 (`scholion: see a2-q1`). Section III of the scholion is on p.263 and was NOT captured in this chunk's range; the q2 writer should read p.263 and decide whether section III belongs with q2 or a later question. q2's opener is at raw L29623 ("QUAESTIO II. Quale corpus Christus in Coena dederit discipulis.") with running head "DIST. XI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 263".

**`[?]` flags.** None — all body and apparatus readings resolved against the PDF bands. Minor OCR normalizations silently corrected per the cleanup rules (`Chrislus`→`Christus`, `confeceril`→`confecerit`, `azyino`→`azymo`, `videlur`→`videtur`, `conciusio`→`conclusio`, `addunlque`→`adduntque`, `Serundum`→`Secundum`).


title: Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 263 -->

### Quaestio II. *Quale corpus Christus in Coena dederit discipulis.*

Secundo quaeritur de modo, quo Christus confecit quoad contentum interius; et quaeritur, quale corpus dedit discipulis in Coena. Et quod impassibile et immortale videtur.

1. Matthaei decimo septimo[^1]: *Transfiguratus est ante eos*; Glossa: « Illud corpus, quod habuit per naturam, dedit discipulis suis in Coena, non mortale, non passibile ».

2. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia omnis caro passibilis est convertibilis: ergo si corpus passibile dedit, fuit convertibile in manducantes; quod est inconveniens.

3. Item, omni passibili potest inferri passio, et omne illud cui potest inferri passio, laeditur per contactum fortem agentis: si ergo Christus sub forma panis fuit passibilis[^2], tunc ergo percussione dentium et masticatione poterat laedi.

4. Item, si passibile et mortale — esto quod esset reservatum in triduo; tunc ergo moreretur; et si hoc, non esset ibi anima: ergo nec plenum Sacramentum. Cum ergo hoc non sit ponere, constat, quod non moreretur: ergo etc.

5. Item, esto quod aliquis consecrasset in triduo, constat, quod verba eandem haberent virtutem; sed virtute verborum est ibi modo totus Christus[^3]: ergo totus Christus esset ibi: ergo simul esset *vivus* et *mortuus*, *vivus* sub Sacramento, *mortuus* extra: ergo pari ratione *immortale* sub Sacramento, *mortale* extra.

6. Item, quod illud nullum sit inconveniens, videtur: quia, si aliquod corpus esset in pluribus locis, simul posset moveri et quiescere, et simul moveri et non moveri[^4]: ergo eadem ratione simul pati et non pati, mori et non mori: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^5] dicit Glossa: « Solet quaeri, quale corpus discipulis suis dedit Dominus »; et respondet: « Tale, quale erat, quia passibile et mortale ».

2. Item, si dedit impassibile et immortale; cum haberet in se[^6] passibile et mortale: ergo aliter dedit in signo quam in se: ergo fuit ibi fictio.

<!-- page 264 -->

3. Item, si immortale — esto quod reservaretur, simul esset vivus et mortuus: ergo simul viveret et non viveret; et si hoc, duo contradictorie opposita essent simul vera de eodem; quod non potest credi nec intelligi[^7].

4. Item, cum dicitur: *Hoc est corpus meum*, panis solum convertitur in corpus; sed anima est ibi solum per concomitantiam[^8]: ergo si in triduo fuisset confectum cum anima esset separata: ergo similiter, si esset reservatum: ergo passibile et mortale.

> **Conclusio.** Corpus Christi in Coena discipulis datum erat sub speciebus passibile et mortale, sed ibi erat impassibiliter.

**Respondeo:** Circa hoc duplex est opinio: una[^9] magistri Hugonis[^10] et suorum sequacium, quod Christus corpus suum immortale et impassibile dedit sub Sacramento. Et non est inconveniens, quod sit habens alterum et alterum modum essendi *habitu* et *actu*. *Habitu* quidem erat mortale, sed ex aliqua causa sumsit ad tempus immortalitatem; sicut subtilitatem in nativitate, agilitatem in mari, claritatem in monte[^11], sic immortalitatem sub Sacramento. Nec est ibi contradictio vera, quia corpus Christi ex hoc, quod in pluribus locis est, oppositas habet proprietates, sicut *portare* et *portari*, *quiescere* et *moveri*; sic *pati* et *non pati*. Quantum enim ad hoc accipit rationem *universalis*, licet vere sit *singulare*[^12]. Et secundum opinionem istorum, si reservatum fuisset, non esset mortuum in pyxide. — Sed quia haec opinio simul contradictoria ponit dici de eodem, secundum quod idem; et hoc non est necessarium ponere in hoc Sacramento: ideo minus est rationabilis.

Propterea est alia opinio Magistri[^13] et Innocentii et sequacium, quod « dedit tale corpus discipulis, quale habuit ». Quamvis enim corpus Christi simul virtute Sacramenti sit in pluribus locis, easdem tamen habet absolutas proprietates, tanquam unum numero. Et propterea ad intelligentiam obiectorum in contrarium dicendum, quod duplex est proprietas, quae convenit corpori Christi: quaedam *absoluta*, quaedam *relata ad locum*[^14]. Proprietas absoluta, quae convenit corpori Christi, ut in uno loco est, cum sit una, convenit tamen ut in omnibus. Sed proprietas relata ad locum, cum sit in diversis locis, etsi conveniat ei in uno loco, non tamen oportet, quod in omnibus. Unde non oportet, quod — si corpus Christi sit in multis locis — quodsi movetur in uno, moveatur in altero. Similiter non oportet, quodsi aliquis percutit ipsum in uno loco, quod in alio similiter percutiat, quia talis operatio respicit praesentiam localem agentis. Ita similiter non oportet, quodsi videatur in uno loco, quod in alio videatur, quia hoc respicit praesentiam visibilis.

Concedendum ergo, quod Christus corpus passibile et mortale habebat sub Sacramento, sed tamen non poterat ibi sibi passio inferri, quantumcumque homo percuteret. Unde dicendum, quod sub speciebus illis erat passibilis, sed erat ibi impassibiliter. — Unde loquendo de passione illata, si quaeratur, utrum posset ibi pati; ista distinguenda est: aut enim hoc quod est *ibi* determinat *actum*, aut compositionem intellectam circa subiectum. Si determinat *actum*; falsa est, quia sensus est, quod sub Sacramento poterat ei passio inferri; et hoc est falsum, quia, sicut ibi non poterat sentiri[^15], ita nec poterat ei passio inferri. Si autem determinat *compositionem intellectam circa subiectum*; sic locutio est vera, et est sensus: *existens ibi* poterat pati; quia, si passio in alio loco ei inferatur, etiam ibi passionem sentiret et moreretur. Unde si fuisset reservatum corpus illud, habuisset plagas sub Sacramento, sicut extra; sed tamen non esset illi illata passio sub tali modo existendi. Propter hoc dicunt magistri, quod ibi existens erat passibilis passione illata sibi alibi, tamen erat impassibiliter. — Et si hoc magister Hugo intellexit, habet veritatem; sed tunc illa adaptatio de *dotibus* non valet. Si enim *dotes* dicunt *qualitates* aliquas, non video, quomodo corpus non sit alteratum, saltem ad tempus. Constat autem, quod quando dedit Sacramentum, corpus eius *actu* et *habitu* habebat proprietatem passibilitatis: ergo non habebat oppositum; *modum* tamen existendi in alio alium habebat, qui modus sublimabat ipsum supra *habere positionem*, ac per hoc supra possibilitatem sentiendi, ut erat ibi, vel contingendi. Unde quamvis esset passibile, tamen nunquam poterat palpari ibi; similiter nec passio ibi inferri.

1. 2. Ex hoc patent obiecta, quia Glossa dicit, quod dedit immortale et impassibile, quia ibi passio ei non poterat inferri vel mors, tamen alibi sic. — Patet similiter sequens, quare ibi non poterat converti, quia non erat ibi passibile.

3. Similiter patet tertium, quia passio poterat ei inferri, sed non secundum omnem statum, ut puta secundum illum, secundum quem est insensibile.

4. 5. 6. Ad illud quod quaeritur, si in triduo fuisset reservatum; dicendum, quod mortuus esset sub speciebus; et similiter, si aliquis conficeret, non esset ibi nisi corpus mortuum. — Quod obiicit, quod tunc imperfectum esset etc.; dicendum, quod Sacramentum esset *perfectum ab efficacia*, quia corpus erat unitum Divinitati, perfectum a *significantia*, sed tamen *non a continentia*. Et ratio huius est, quia imperfectio erat in ipso significato, quia corpus erat mortuum. — Similiter dicendum, quod non anima[^16] *virtute verborum*, sed propter *coniunctionem*. Unde quia in triduo non erat coniuncta, ideo non esset ibi, non propter virtutem verborum, quae modo sit maior, sed propter alium statum corporis; verba autem sacramentalia sunt ordinata ad convertendum in corpus, quale erat secundum statum prolationis verborum.

Sed nunquid poterat Christus facere, si corpus erat mortuum sub Sacramento, quod anima, egrediens de corpore pendente in cruce, intraret corpus sub Sacramento, et ita simul esset vivum et mortuum? Dicendum, quod hoc facere nil aliud esset quam redire, unde exierat; unde hoc esset corpus suum vivificare, quia omnino unum est; et ideo est ibi imaginatio mala, quia imaginatur, corpus Christi unicum esse ut diversa corpora, et quod unum sit et perfectum et vivum, et aliud non. Hoc autem non debet intelligi, quia unum tantum est corpus[^17].

english:
### Question II. *What kind of body Christ gave to the disciples in the Supper.*

Secondly, it is asked concerning the manner in which Christ consecrated as regards the inward content; and it is asked what kind of body he gave to the disciples in the Supper. And it seems [to be] impassible and immortal.

1. Matthew the seventeenth[^1]: *He was transfigured before them*; the Gloss: "That body which he had by nature he gave to his disciples in the Supper, not mortal, not passible."

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so: because all passible flesh is convertible: therefore if he gave a passible body, it was convertible into those eating; which is unfitting.

3. Likewise, to every passible thing a passion can be inflicted, and everything to which a passion can be inflicted is harmed by the strong contact of an agent: if therefore Christ under the form of bread was passible[^2], then he could be harmed by the striking of the teeth and by chewing.

4. Likewise, if [it was] passible and mortal — suppose it were reserved during the three days; then it would die; and if so, the soul would not be there: therefore not even a complete Sacrament. Since, then, this is not to be posited, it is clear that it would not die: therefore, etc.

5. Likewise, suppose someone had consecrated during the three days, it is clear that the words would have the same power; but by the power of the words the whole Christ is there in that mode[^3]: therefore the whole Christ would be there: therefore he would be at once *living* and *dead*, *living* under the Sacrament, *dead* outside [it]: therefore by parity of reasoning [he would be] *immortal* under the Sacrament, *mortal* outside.

6. Likewise, that this is no unfitting thing, it seems: because, if some body were in many places, it could be at once moved and at rest, and at once moved and not moved[^4]: therefore by the same reasoning [it could] at once suffer and not suffer, die and not die: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. On the First [Epistle] to the Corinthians, the eleventh [chapter][^5], the Gloss says: "It is wont to be asked, what kind of body the Lord gave to his disciples"; and it answers: "Such as it was, because passible and mortal."

2. Likewise, if he gave [a body] impassible and immortal; whereas he had in himself[^6] [a body] passible and mortal: therefore he gave [it] otherwise in the sign than in himself: therefore there was a fiction there.

3. Likewise, if [it was] immortal — suppose it were reserved, it would be at once living and dead: therefore it would at once live and not live; and if so, two contradictorily opposite things would be at once true of the same thing; which can neither be believed nor understood[^7].

4. Likewise, when it is said: *This is my body*, the bread only is converted into the body; but the soul is there only by concomitance[^8]: therefore if during the three days it had been consecrated when the soul was separated [from the body]: therefore likewise, if it were reserved: therefore [it is] passible and mortal.

> **Conclusion.** The body of Christ given to the disciples in the Supper was, under the species, passible and mortal, but it was there impassibly.

**I respond:** Concerning this there is a twofold opinion: one[^9] of master Hugh[^10] and of his followers, that Christ gave his body immortal and impassible under the Sacrament. And it is not unfitting that it should have the one and the other mode of being *in habit* and *in act*. *In habit* indeed it was mortal, but from some cause it took on immortality for a time; just as [it took on] subtlety in his nativity, agility on the sea, clarity on the mountain[^11], so [it took on] immortality under the Sacrament. Nor is there a true contradiction there, because the body of Christ, from the fact that it is in many places, has opposite properties, such as *to carry* and *to be carried*, *to be at rest* and *to be moved*; so *to suffer* and *not to suffer*. For in this respect it takes on the character of a *universal*, although it is truly a *singular*[^12]. And according to the opinion of these [men], if it had been reserved, it would not have died in the pyx. — But because this opinion posits that contradictories are said at once of the same thing, insofar as it is the same; and this is not necessary to posit in this Sacrament: therefore it is less reasonable.

Therefore there is another opinion of the Master[^13] and of Innocent and their followers, that "he gave such a body to the disciples as he had." For although the body of Christ be at once, by the power of the Sacrament, in many places, nevertheless it has the same absolute properties, as one in number. And therefore, for the understanding of the objections to the contrary, it must be said that the property which belongs to the body of Christ is twofold: a certain one *absolute*, a certain one *related to place*[^14]. The absolute property, which belongs to the body of Christ as it is in one place, since it is one, nevertheless belongs [to it] as in all [places]. But the property related to place, since it is in diverse places, even if it belongs to it in one place, it need not [belong to it] in all. Hence it need not [be the case] — if the body of Christ be in many places — that if it is moved in one, it be moved in another. Likewise it need not [be the case] that, if someone strikes it in one place, that he likewise strikes [it] in another, because such an operation regards the local presence of the agent. So likewise it need not [be the case] that, if it is seen in one place, it be seen in another, because this regards the presence of the visible thing.

It is to be granted, therefore, that Christ had a passible and mortal body under the Sacrament, but nevertheless a passion could not be inflicted on it there, however much a man might strike. Hence it must be said that under those species it was passible, but it was there impassibly. — Hence, speaking of the passion inflicted, if it be asked whether it could suffer there; this is to be distinguished: for either this [word] *there* determines the *act*, or the composition understood with respect to the subject. If it determines the *act*; it is false, because the sense is that under the Sacrament a passion could be inflicted on it; and this is false, because, just as it could not be perceived there[^15], so neither could a passion be inflicted on it. But if it determines the *composition understood with respect to the subject*; thus the statement is true, and the sense is: *the thing existing there* could suffer; because, if a passion be inflicted on it in another place, it would feel the passion even there and would die. Hence if that body had been reserved, it would have had wounds under the Sacrament, just as outside [it]; but nevertheless a passion would not be inflicted on it under such a mode of existing. On account of this the masters say that the thing existing there was passible with a passion inflicted on it elsewhere, yet it was [so] impassibly. — And if Hugh the master understood this, he has the truth; but then that application concerning the *endowments* [of the glorified body] is not valid. For if the *endowments* mean certain *qualities*, I do not see how the body would not be altered, at least for a time. But it is clear that, when he gave the Sacrament, his body had *in act* and *in habit* the property of passibility: therefore it did not have the opposite; nevertheless it had another *mode* of existing in another [place], which mode raised it above *having position*, and through this above the possibility of being perceived, as it was there, or of being touched. Hence although it was passible, nevertheless it could never be felt there; likewise neither could a passion be inflicted there.

1. 2. From this the objections are clear, because the Gloss says that he gave [a body] immortal and impassible, because there a passion or death could not be inflicted on it, yet elsewhere [it] thus [could]. — Likewise the next [objection] is clear, why it could not be converted there, because the passible [body] was not there.

3. Likewise the third is clear, because a passion could be inflicted on it, but not according to every state, as for instance according to that [state] according to which it is insensible.

4. 5. 6. To that which is asked, if it had been reserved during the three days; it must be said that it would be dead under the species; and likewise, if someone were to consecrate, there would be there only a dead body. — As to what is objected, that then it would be imperfect, etc.; it must be said that the Sacrament would be *perfect in efficacy*, because the body was united to the Divinity, perfect in *signification*, but nevertheless *not in containment*. And the reason of this is that the imperfection was in the thing signified itself, because the body was dead. — Likewise it must be said that not the soul[^16] [is there] *by the power of the words*, but on account of the *conjunction*. Hence because during the three days it was not conjoined, therefore it would not be there, not on account of the power of the words, which would now be greater, but on account of another state of the body; but the sacramental words are ordered to converting into a body such as it was according to the state at the utterance of the words.

But could Christ have brought it about, if the body was dead under the Sacrament, that the soul, going out from the body hanging on the cross, should enter the body under the Sacrament, and thus it be at once living and dead? It must be said that to do this would be nothing other than to return whence it had gone out; whence this would be to vivify his [own] body, because it is altogether one; and therefore there is there a bad imagination, because one imagines the body of Christ to be unique [in the way that] diverse bodies [are distinct], and that one be both perfect and living, and the other not. But this ought not to be understood [so], because there is only one body[^17].

la: Vers. 2. — Glossa est *ordinaria* apud Strabum et Lyranum.

en: Verse 2. — The Gloss is the *ordinary* [gloss] in Strabo and Lyra.

la: Ex codd. BFGRZ bb supplevimus *passibilis* [codd. BZ omittunt *tunc*].

en: From codices BFGRZ bb we have supplied *passibilis* [codices BZ omit *tunc*].

la: Cfr. supra p. I. q. 4. — Superius post *virtutem* in cod. X additur *sicut modo*.

en: Cf. above p. I. q. 4. — Above, after *virtutem*, in codex X is added *sicut modo*.

la: Vide supra d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3.

en: See above d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3.

la: Vers. 24. — Glossam exhibet Petr. Lombard. in hunc locum, quam sumsit ex Hugonis loco infra nota 9. cit. — Edd. ante *Tale* addunt *Dicimus*; textus originalis habet *Dicemus*, et pro *quia* substituit *id est*.

en: Verse 24. — Peter Lombard gives the Gloss on this passage, which he took from the passage of Hugh cited below at note 9. — The editions before *Tale* add *Dicimus*; the original text has *Dicemus*, and for *quia* it substitutes *id est*.

la: Cod. Y hic et paulo inferius *in re*.

en: Codex Y here and a little below [reads] *in re*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., IV. Metaph. text. 9. seqq. (III. c. 3. seqq.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IV. text 9 ff. (III. c. 3 ff.).

la: Ut dictum est supra p. I. q. 4.

en: As was said above p. I. q. 4.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 3.

en: Book II *On the Sacraments* p. VIII. c. 3.

la: Respiciuntur dotes corporis glorificati, de quibus infra d. 49. p. II. a. 1. princip. a. 2. q. 1. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 12.

en: Reference is made to the endowments of the glorified body, concerning which [see] below d. 49. p. II. a. 1. princip. a. 2. q. 1. Cf. Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 12.

la: Vide supra pag. 220, nota 9. Cfr. d. 9. a. I. q. 3. ad 4. et d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3. — Pro *portare* et *portari* cod. G *portari* et *non portari*.

en: See above p. 220, note 9. Cf. d. 9. a. I. q. 3. ad 4. and d. 10. p. I. q. 3. ad 3. — For *portare* and *portari* codex G [reads] *portari* and *non portari*.

la: Hic in lit. c. 6; Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 12.

en: Here in the text [of the Master] c. 6; Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 12.

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 4. ad 2. — Inferius post *ut in omnibus* cod. aa addit *locis, sicut esse talis quantitatis*, et post *in diversis locis* subiungit *et etiam ratione diversorum locorum*.

en: Cf. above d. 10. p. I. q. 4. ad 2. — Below, after *ut in omnibus*, codex aa adds *locis, sicut esse talis quantitatis*, and after *in diversis locis* subjoins *et etiam ratione diversorum locorum*.

la: Vide supra d. 10. p. I. q. 2. in fine corp.

en: See above d. 10. p. I. q. 2. at the end of the body [of the article].

la: Ut probare vult Alex. Hal., loc. in scholio cit. — Pro *sentiri* cod. A *potentiam*, Vat. *passionem*, ed. I legit *supra hanc passionem*, cod. H *supra hanc*, per hoc etc. Paulo ante post *in alio* cod. aa addit *sicut sub Sacramento*. In fine corp. verbo *inferri* cod. V praemittit *ei*.

en: As Alexander of Hales seeks to prove, at the place cited in the scholion. — For *sentiri* codex A [reads] *potentiam*, the Vatican [edition] *passionem*, edition I reads *supra hanc passionem*, codex H *supra hanc*, per hoc etc. A little before, after *in alio*, codex aa adds *sicut sub Sacramento*. At the end of the body, before the word *inferri*, codex V prefixes *ei*.

la: Cod. Y *passibiliter*. — Edd. *confecisset*. Cod. F G H L U aa *quod non esset ibi tunc anima*, edd. *quod non est esse ibi animam*.

en: Codex Y [reads] *passibiliter*. — The editions [read] *confecisset*. Codices F G H L U aa [read] *quod non esset ibi tunc anima*, the editions *quod non est esse ibi animam*.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

latin_scholion:
**La.** *Pro hac quaestione scholion proprium non habetur; vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem (a. 2, q. 1), ad quod ipse textus remittit: « Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest. »*

**En.** *This question has no scholion of its own; see the scholion to the preceding question (a. 2, q. 1), to which the text itself refers: "See the scholion to the preceding question."*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 263–264; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 29623–29881) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo/Solutio and all footers were cascade-shattered in OCR (the q2 columns interleaved with the a2-q1 *azymo/fermentato* commentary across the bands) and were taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener verified verbatim against both raw OCR and the p263 PDF band: "Secundo quaeritur de modo, quo Christus confecit quoad contentum interius; et quaeritur, quale corpus dedit discipulis in Coena." Aligned with this chunk's title. The auto-chunker boundary is correct (the skeleton frontmatter dropped `pars: 2`; restored here).

**Running head.** p263 recto top = **"DIST. XI. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. II."** (band p263-L-0) — page-verify passes (DIST. XI, not X or XII; ART. II; QUAEST. II). p264 verso top = "264 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line, normal for verso). printed_pages set to [263, 264].

**Page span.** q2 spans printed pp. **263–264**. p263 holds the title, opener, videtur args 1–6, and Contra 1–2; the page break falls inside Contra (arg. 2 closes on p263, arg. 3 opens on p264). p264 holds Contra 3–4, Conclusio, Respondeo (both opinions), and the full Solutio (replies 1. 2. / 3. / 4. 5. 6. + the soul-reentering-the-body coda). q2 ends at the bottom of p264 ("quia unum tantum est corpus"); **DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI** begins after — handed off to the d.11-p2-dubia chunk.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 15 footnotes. p263 (per-page restart) nn.1–6 all anchor in q2's videtur/contra args → [^1]–[^6]. p264 (per-page restart) nn.1–9 anchor in q2's Contra 3–4 + Respondeo + Solutio → mapped by body order: n1→[^7] (Aristot., Contra 3), n2→[^8] (*ut dictum supra*, Contra 4), n3→[^9] (*Libr. II de Sacram.*, opinio Hugonis), n4→[^10] (*dotes/Innocent.*), n5→[^11] (*pag. 220*, subtilitas/agilitas/claritas), n6→[^12] (*lit. c. 6/Innocent.*, universalis/singulare), then the four notes printed lower (codd. variants) → [^13] (*d.10 p.I q.4 ad 2*, duplex proprietas), [^14] (*d.10 p.I q.2*, relata ad locum), [^15] (*Alex. Hal. / sentiri* variants), [^16] (*Cod. Y passibiliter / confecisset*), [^17] (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). No footers belong to neighbors; the dubia chunk owns all footers after this q2 (p264 has none past n9; the next page's "DIST. XI. P. II. DUBIA." running head and the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI heading begin the dubia chunk).

**Scholion disposition.** q2 has **no scholion of its own**; the printed footnote [^17] explicitly says "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." The Art II scholion (sections I, II + the "De ipsa quaestione" reference lists) is owned by **a2-q1** and is printed entirely on p.262. `has_scholion: false`; a one-line La+En cross-ref note placed in `### Scholion`.

**a2-q1 SCHOLION "Section III" check (extra task).** The Art II scholion on p.262 (bands p262-R-1, p262-R-2) contains sections **I** ("Circa 1. quaestionem est notandum, quod opinio Hugonis...") and **II** ("Circa 2. quaestionem...") plus their "De ipsa 1./2. quaestione" reference lists. **There is NO Section III ("III." / "De 3.") on p.263** — p.263 is entirely q2's body and q2's footnotes. The a2-q1 scholion is fully contained on p.262 and is complete with two sections.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands.