title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 274 -->

### Articulus II. *De actione et transmutatione accidentium.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum species illae possint converti in alimentum.*

Quantum ad secundum articulum, scilicet de actione et mutatione illorum accidentium, quaeruntur similiter tria. Primo quaeritur, utrum illa accidentia possint converti in alimentum. Secundo, utrum possint alias species sive naturas convertere in Sacramentum. Tertio, utrum aliquas operationes habeant per naturam, an aliquas habeant per miraculum.

Primo igitur quaeritur, utrum species illae sive accidentia possint converti in alimentum. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per textum et Glossam, primae ad Corinthios undecimo[^1], ubi dicitur: *Unusquisque coenam suam praesumit ad manducandum; et alius quidem esurit, alius autem ebrius est*; et Glossa hoc exponit de divitibus, qui offerebant panem ad consecrandum in magna abundantia et aliis non dabant: ergo si panis et vinum non solum reficere poterant, verum etiam inebriare post consecrationem: ergo et in alimentum cedere.

2. Item, sicut calor ignis ordinatur ad convertendum in cinerem illud quod offertur in pabulum, sic calor naturalis ad convertendum in carnem et sanguinem[^2]; sed species proiecta in ignem comburitur et convertitur in cinerem, agente exteriori calore: ergo pari ratione in sanguinem potest converti, agente calore interiori.

<!-- page 275 -->

3. Item, sicut putrefactio ordinatur ad generationem vermis, sic digestio ad generationem humoris et carnis; sed species illae convertuntur in vermes, si putrefiant, sicut experimento patens esset, si quis probare vellet — et credo, quod per negligentiam aliquando contingit — ergo pari ratione in carnem.

4. Item, hoc probatur deducendo ad inconveniens duplex: primum, quod illud Sacramentum est in praeiudicium naturae, quia, quoties fit transsubstantiatio, perit cibus naturalis irrevocabiliter, ex quo nullo modo convertitur in aliquid, quod natum sit cibare. Secundum inconveniens est, quod illud Sacramentum, si est ita, est in praeiudicium fidei: si enim accidentia non habent operationem substantiae, deprehendi potest illud Sacramentum sensibili experimento, et ita meritum fidei evacuari[^3]. Sed utrumque horum est maximum inconveniens et contra illud Sacramentum, cum sit in meritum fidei institutum.

**Sed contra:** 1. « Ex eisdem nutrimur, ex quibus sumus », sicut dicit Philosophus[^4]; sed non sumus ex accidentibus, sed ex substantiis: ergo cum species illae sint accidentia, patet, quod non nutriunt. Si dicas, quod miraculose convertuntur in substantiam; contra: si convertuntur in substantiam; cum sint multa accidentia, ergo in multas substantias debent converti: ergo quot accidentia sunt ibi, tot substantiae debent generari. Si tu dicas, quod quantitas convertitur in substantiam, quae est aliorum fundamentum; ergo si convertitur in substantiam, desinit esse quantitas: ergo desinit esse quantum. Sed omne alimentum auget per naturam quanti[^5]: ergo illud alimentum non poterit augere; illud etiam alimentum generatum carebit quantitate; quod est impossibile.

> **Conclusio.** Species illae possunt converti in alimentum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc duplex fuit opinio.

Aliqui dixerunt, quod accidentia illa non reficiunt nec convertuntur in alimentum, quia nec accidentia possunt[^6] nec huic competit Sacramento; tamen species habent odorem et saporem et odor, quamvis sit accidens, tamen immutando aera et cerebrum inebriat, sicut patet quod multi inebriantur ex odore vini. Et sic dicunt intelligendum esse verbum Apostoli et Glossae.

Sed quoniam manifeste apparet in combustione specierum, quod resolvuntur in cineres; et si non alerent, non appareret, quomodo hoc Sacramentum latere possit, immo necesse esset deprehendi: ideo communior est opinio, quod percipiens Sacramentum alitur et nutritur; et illud satis probari potest ad sensum. Manifestum enim est percipienti, quod per sumptionem vini sive illius speciei sitis exstinguitur.

1. Ad illud autem quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod alimentum est substantia, diversimode respondetur a diversis. — Aliqui enim dicunt, quod virtute supra naturam accidentia convertuntur in substantiam. Ille enim, qui virtute increata potens est supra naturam accidentia illa sustentare sine materia, ille virtutem[^7] dat, ut, desinentibus proprietatibus, non in nihil, sed in substantiam convertantur, in quam converteretur ipsa panis substantia, si adesset. Et hoc dicunt ipsum Sacramentum exigere, ne

<!-- page 276 -->

deprehendatur, et fides amittat meritum; ne etiam Sacramentum faciat aliquod naturae praeiudicium. — Et si tu obiicias, quod incineratio non est a virtute supra naturam, sed naturali, similiter nec inebriatio nec combustio, immo sunt a virtutibus naturalibus, maxime cum fiant ab exteriori virtute, fiant nihilominus successive, terminentur etiam ad rem minus perfectam; ipsi dicunt, quod ibi est potentia activa et potentia passiva; potentia agens est naturalis, sed potentia passiva in accidentibus est supra naturam quantum ad hoc, scilicet ut in substantiam convertantur. Nam residuum, quod fit ante conversionem, et quod fit post conversionem, totum potest esse a potentia naturali, tam agente quam patiente. Et hi dicunt, quod primum accidentium[^8] convertitur in substantiam, non quia de quantitate fiat substantia tantum, sed quia fit substantia quanta. — Et haec opinio satis est probabilis.

Aliorum opinio est, quod suscipiens species alitur, non quia accidentia in substantiam convertantur, sed quia substantia revertitur, quae prius ibi fuerat; ut sicut in aliis miraculis et apparitionibus dicitur, quod in praeiacentem materiam resolvuntur et redeunt, sicut dicitur de columba et de stella[^9] et consimilibus: sic etiam dicunt, quod sicut panis convertitur in corpus, ut sit Sacramentum; sic, peracto officio Sacramenti, ex quo desinit esse Sacramentum, desinit ibi esse corpus Christi; et ideo, sicut mirabiliter prius substantia panis convertitur, ita etiam miraculose revertitur.

Et ista fuit positio Innocentii in libro suo, quem fecit de Ecclesiasticis Officiis, ubi dicit in libro tertio, capitulo de fractione[^10]: « Si ergo quaeritur, quid a mure comeditur, cum Sacramentum corroditur, vel quid incineratur, cum Sacramentum crematur; respondendum, quod sicut miraculose substantia panis convertitur in corpus dominicum et incipit esse sub Sacramento; sic ipsa quodam modo miraculose revertitur, cum ipsum ibi desinit esse ». — Hanc autem modum dicendi credo probabilem et securum, maxime cum tanti viri habeat auctoritatem. Caveat tamen quisque, qualiter intelligit, quia in hoc secretum fidei latet. — Sed secundum hanc positionem patet responsio ad quaestionem.

Concedendum enim est, quod recipiens hoc Sacramentum alitur et nutritur, non quia accidens in substantiam convertatur, sed[^11] aliquid convertitur in substantiam comedentis, non, inquam, accidens, sed substantia. Et sic non est contra illud Philosophi, quod ex eisdem nutrimur, ex quibus sumus.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est cibus spiritualis; dicendum, quod illud verum est, quamdiu salvatur ratio Sacramenti; non enim cibat carnaliter in quantum Sacramentum[^12], sed ad cibationem spiritualem est ordinatum; et cum incipit cibare corporaliter, desinit esse Sacramentum. — Et ita patet, quod ratio illa bona est. Cum enim sit ibi, quamdiu est Sacramentum, corpus Christi verum; et hoc non alit corporaliter, et accidentia similiter non alunt: ideo Sacramentum recte dicitur spiritualis cibus, quamvis, recedente ratione et officio Sacramenti, cibus corporalis incipiat esse, sicut fuerat ante.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod solvit ieiunium; dicendum, quod non solvit: tum quia Sacramentum, dum sumitur, non est cibus corporalis, tum etiam ratione corporis Christi interius contenti, qui[^13] tantum est cibus mentis. Et ideo non est simile de vino, quod recipitur ad purificationem. Et ideo patet illud.

4. Patet etiam sequens. Ambrosius enim loquitur de corpore Christi; et hoc est tantum cibus mentis, non ventris.

Uterque praedictorum modorum dicendi satis probabilis videtur, nec facile est improbare, quia[^14] Sancti non multum de hoc loquuntur. Nec rationi hic multum innitendum est, quia utraque opinio fundatur hic supra miraculum et potentiam operantem supra naturam. Quis autem scit, utrum Deus sic vel sic faciat, cum uterque modus dicendi satis sit rationabilis? Nec videtur omnino improbabile, quod aliquod accidens in substantiam convertatur in hoc Sacramento, cum accidens hic subsistat sine subiecto; nec videtur improbabile, quod sicut substantia panis convertitur, ita revertatur. Cum enim in substantiae panis conversione corpus Christi non generetur nec fiat, sed tantum sub illis speciebus esse incipiat, sicut tenet fides recta[^15]; quis audeat hoc tanquam irrationabile repudiare, ut, corpore Christi non corrupto, sed desinente esse sub speciebus, substantia illa, quae sustentabat accidentia, revertatur, cum accidentia illa non sint ob aliud sine subiecto nisi ob dignitatem et praesentiam contenti? — Quodsi quaeras, utrum sit creatio, vel

<!-- page 277 -->

generatio vel alia mutatio; sane potest dici, quod sicut conversio est mutatio singularis[^16], sic et reversio. Quidquid autem horum dicatur, dum tamen non asseratur pertinaciter, nullum est ibi periculum; solum hoc caveatur, ut nostrae capacitatis intelligentia totaliter in Christi obsequium captivetur[^17].

english:
### Article II. *On the action and transmutation of the accidents.*
### Question I. *Whether those species can be converted into nourishment.*

As to the second article, namely concerning the action and change of those accidents, three matters are likewise asked. First, it is asked whether those accidents can be converted into nourishment. Second, whether they can convert other species or natures into the Sacrament. Third, whether they have any operations by nature, or whether they have any by miracle.

First, then, it is asked whether those species or accidents can be converted into nourishment. And that they can, it seems:

1. By the text and the Gloss, on First Corinthians the eleventh[^1], where it is said: *Each one takes beforehand his own supper to eat; and one indeed is hungry, but another is drunk*; and the Gloss expounds this of the rich, who offered bread for consecrating in great abundance and did not give to others: therefore, if bread and wine could not only refresh but even inebriate after consecration: therefore they also pass into nourishment.

2. Likewise, just as the heat of fire is ordered to converting into ash that which is offered as fuel, so natural heat is ordered to converting into flesh and blood[^2]; but a species cast into the fire is burned and converted into ash by an exterior heat acting: therefore by parity of reasoning it can be converted into blood by an interior heat acting.

<!-- page 275 -->

3. Likewise, just as putrefaction is ordered to the generation of a worm, so digestion to the generation of humor and flesh; but those species are converted into worms, if they putrefy, as would be plainly evident by experiment, if anyone wished to test it — and I believe that through negligence it sometimes happens — therefore by parity of reasoning [they are converted] into flesh.

4. Likewise, this is proven by leading to a twofold inconvenience: first, that that Sacrament is to the prejudice of nature, because, as often as transubstantiation occurs, the natural food perishes irrevocably, from which it is in no way converted into anything that is apt to feed. The second inconvenience is that that Sacrament, if it is so, is to the prejudice of faith: for if the accidents do not have the operation of substance, that Sacrament can be detected by sensible experiment, and so the merit of faith [can] be emptied out[^3]. But both of these are a very great inconvenience and against that Sacrament, since it was instituted for the merit of faith.

**On the contrary:** 1. "From the same things we are nourished, from which we are," as the Philosopher says[^4]; but we are not from accidents, but from substances: therefore since those species are accidents, it is clear that they do not nourish. If you say that they are miraculously converted into substance; on the contrary: if they are converted into substance; since they are many accidents, therefore they ought to be converted into many substances: therefore as many accidents as are there, so many substances ought to be generated. If you say that quantity is converted into substance, which is the foundation of the others; therefore if it is converted into substance, it ceases to be quantity: therefore it ceases to be quantified. But every nourishment increases by nature what is quantified[^5]: therefore that nourishment will not be able to increase; that generated nourishment will also lack quantity; which is impossible.

> **Conclusion.** Those species can be converted into nourishment.

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there were two opinions.

Some have said that those accidents do not refresh nor are converted into nourishment, because neither can accidents [do so][^6] nor does it befit this Sacrament; yet the species have odor and savor, and odor, although it is an accident, nevertheless by altering the air and the brain inebriates, as is plain that many are inebriated from the odor of wine. And thus they say the word of the Apostle and of the Gloss is to be understood.

But since it manifestly appears in the burning of the species that they are resolved into ashes; and if they did not feed, it would not appear how this Sacrament could lie hidden, rather it would be necessary [for it] to be detected: therefore the more common opinion is that the one receiving the Sacrament is fed and nourished; and that can be sufficiently proven to sense. For it is manifest to the one receiving that by the taking of wine or of that species thirst is extinguished.

1. But to that which is objected to the contrary, that nourishment is substance, it is answered in diverse ways by diverse [authors]. — For some say that by a power above nature the accidents are converted into substance. For he who by an uncreated power is able above nature to sustain those accidents without matter, he gives the power[^7] that, the properties ceasing, they be converted not into nothing, but into the substance into which the very substance of bread would be converted, if it were present. And they say that the Sacrament itself requires this, lest

<!-- page 276 -->

it be detected, and faith lose its merit; lest also the Sacrament do any prejudice to nature. — And if you object that incineration is not from a power above nature, but from a natural [power], and likewise neither inebriation nor combustion, rather they are from natural powers, especially since they come about from an exterior power, and come about nonetheless successively, and terminate also at a less perfect thing; they say that there is there an active potency and a passive potency; the agent potency is natural, but the passive potency in the accidents is above nature as to this, namely that they be converted into substance. For the residue, which comes about before the conversion, and which comes about after the conversion, can wholly be from a natural potency, both agent and patient. And these say that the first of the accidents[^8] is converted into substance, not because from quantity there comes to be substance only, but because there comes to be a quantified substance. — And this opinion is sufficiently probable.

The opinion of others is that the one receiving the species is fed, not because the accidents are converted into substance, but because the substance returns, which was there before; so that, as is said in other miracles and apparitions, that they are resolved into the underlying matter and return, as is said of the dove and of the star[^9] and the like: so also they say that, just as bread is converted into the body, so that it be the Sacrament; so, the office of the Sacrament being completed, from which it ceases to be the Sacrament, the body of Christ ceases to be there; and therefore, just as the substance of bread is wondrously converted beforehand, so also it miraculously returns.

And this was the position of Innocent in the book which he made *On Ecclesiastical Offices*, where he says in the third book, in the chapter on the breaking[^10]: "If therefore it is asked what is eaten by a mouse, when the Sacrament is gnawed, or what is incinerated, when the Sacrament is burned; it must be answered that, just as the substance of bread is miraculously converted into the Lord's body and begins to be under the Sacrament; so it itself in a certain way miraculously returns, when it ceases to be there." — But this manner of speaking I believe probable and secure, especially since it has the authority of so great a man. Let each one nevertheless beware how he understands it, because in this a secret of faith lies hidden. — But according to this position the response to the question is clear.

For it must be conceded that the one receiving this Sacrament is fed and nourished, not because an accident is converted into substance, but[^11] [because] something is converted into the substance of the one eating, not, I say, an accident, but a substance. And thus it is not against that [saying] of the Philosopher, that we are nourished from the same things from which we are.

2. To that which is objected, that it is spiritual food; it must be said that this is true, as long as the account of the Sacrament is preserved; for it does not feed carnally insofar as [it is] the Sacrament[^12], but is ordered to spiritual feeding; and when it begins to feed corporally, it ceases to be the Sacrament. — And so it is clear that that ground is good. For since there is there, as long as it is the Sacrament, the true body of Christ; and this does not feed corporally, and the accidents likewise do not feed: therefore the Sacrament is rightly called spiritual food, although, the account and office of the Sacrament receding, it begins to be corporal food, as it had been before.

3. To that which is objected, that it breaks the fast; it must be said that it does not break [it]: both because the Sacrament, while it is taken, is not corporal food, and also by reason of the body of Christ inwardly contained, which[^13] is only the food of the mind. And therefore it is not the same with wine, which is received for purification. And therefore that is clear.

4. The following is also clear. For Ambrose speaks of the body of Christ; and this is only the food of the mind, not of the belly.

Each of the aforesaid manners of speaking seems sufficiently probable, nor is it easy to disprove, because[^14] the Saints do not speak much about this. Nor is one to rely much on reason here, because each opinion is founded here upon a miracle and a power operating above nature. But who knows whether God does [it] thus or thus, since each manner of speaking is sufficiently reasonable? Nor does it seem altogether improbable that some accident be converted into substance in this Sacrament, since an accident here subsists without a subject; nor does it seem improbable that, just as the substance of bread is converted, so it returns. For since in the conversion of the substance of bread the body of Christ is not generated nor made, but only begins to be under those species, as right faith holds[^15]; who would dare to repudiate this as irrational, that, the body of Christ not being corrupted, but ceasing to be under the species, that substance which sustained the accidents return, since those accidents are not without a subject for any other [reason] than for the dignity and presence of the thing contained? — But if you ask whether it is creation, or

<!-- page 277 -->

generation or another change; it can well be said that, just as conversion is a singular change[^16], so also [is] the reversion. But whatever of these be said, provided it not be asserted obstinately, there is no danger in it; let only this be guarded against, that the understanding of our capacity be wholly taken captive into the obedience of Christ[^17].

la: Vers. 21. — Glossa Strabi, quae est ordinaria, non praecise eundem sensum habet. Verba eiusdem sunt: *Notat illos qui munera, quae offerebant altaribus pro sacrificio conficiendo, peracto illo, sibi resumebant, nec aliis non habentibus communicari sinebant, sed soli sumebant, ita ut inde etiam inebriarentur, aliis esurientibus.* Petr. Lombard., in hunc loc., eandem Glossam paulo fusius proponit, eo quidem modo, quod magis conveniat cum verbis S. Bonaventurae.

en: Verse 21. — The Gloss of Strabo, which is the ordinary [Gloss], does not have precisely the same sense. Its words are: *He notes those who took back to themselves the gifts which they offered at the altars for confecting the sacrifice, when that was done, and did not allow them to be shared with others who did not have, but took them alone, so that thereby they were even inebriated, while others went hungry.* Peter Lombard, on this passage, sets forth the same Gloss a little more fully, in such a way indeed that it agrees more with the words of St. Bonaventure.

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 50. (c. 8.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 50 (c. 8).

la: Cod. H *interdicitur*.

en: Codex H [reads] *interdicitur* (it is forbidden).

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 50. (c. 4.). — Inferius post *in sanguinem* cod. aa addit *et carnem hominis*.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 50 (c. 4). — Below, after *into blood*, codex aa adds *and the flesh of man*.

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 2, et Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 12. — Superius pro *irrevocabiliter* cod. bb *inevitabiliter*.

en: See above a. 1. q. 2, and Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II. p. VIII. c. 12. — Above, for *irrevocabiliter* codex bb [reads] *inevitabiliter*.

la: Supple: *reficere*.

en: Supply: *to refresh*.

la: Libr. V. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 24. haec sententia, licet aliis verbis, invenitur et a Magistro, hic in lit. c. 4, allegatur. Cfr. de Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 58: *Non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritualis est.* Finem arg. cod. R exhibet sic: *in alimentum, non esset cibus mentis; ergo etc.*

en: Book V *On the Sacraments* c. 4. n. 24; this sentence, although in other words, is found also from the Master, [and] is alleged here in the text c. 4. Cf. *On the Mysteries* c. 9. n. 58: *It is therefore not corporal food, but spiritual.* The end of the argument codex R exhibits thus: *into nourishment, it would not be the food of the mind; therefore etc.*

la: Scilicet *quantitas*. Dicitur autem *primum accidentium*, quia sequitur materiam, quae est primum subiectum in substantia composita, dum *qualitas* se tenet ex parte formae, quae est in materia, ut in suo subiecto. — Non pauci codd. *principium accidentium*. Superius pro *post conversionem* edd. cum aliquot codd. *per conversionem*.

en: Namely *quantity*. Now it is called the *first of the accidents*, because it follows matter, which is the first subject in a composite substance, while *quality* holds itself on the side of form, which is in matter, as in its subject. — Not a few codices [read] *principium accidentium* (the principle of the accidents). Above, for *post conversionem* the editions with several codices [read] *per conversionem*.

la: Ita tenet Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum in Matth. 2, 2. et 3, 16; idem refert Petr. Comestor, Histor. evangel. c. 7. et c. 34. Cfr. I. Sent. d. 16. q. 3. ad 3. et 5.

en: So the ordinary Gloss holds, according to Strabo, on Matthew 2, 2 and 3, 16; the same Peter Comestor reports, *Gospel History* c. 7 and c. 34. Cf. I Sent. d. 16. q. 3. ad 3 and 5.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 11. ubi textus originalis post *convertitur* legit: *cum corpus dominicum incipit esse sub Sacramento, sic quodam modo* etc.

en: Book IV *On the Mystery of the Sacred Altar* c. 11, where the original text after *convertitur* reads: *when the Lord's body begins to be under the Sacrament, so in a certain way* etc.

la: Edd. *sed quia*.

en: The editions [read] *sed quia* (but because).

la: Secuti sumus in hac propos. Alex. Hal. S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 2. § 2. ad 2; codd. enim fere omnes legunt *non enim cibat spiritualiter, nisi* [pauci codd. omittunt perperam *nisi*] *in quantum Sacramentum*, quae lectio, etsi sit in se vera, non tamen est congrua propter sequentem particulam *sed*, pro qua codd. E F minus bene *et*, edd. autem *quia*. Subinde post *incipit cibare* ex cod. H (F a secunda manu) substituimus *corporaliter*. Vide infra d. 13. a. 2. q. 2.

en: We have followed in this proposition Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 2. § 2. ad 2; for nearly all the codices read *for it does not feed spiritually, except* [a few codices wrongly omit *except*] *insofar as [it is] the Sacrament*, which reading, although in itself true, is nevertheless not congruous on account of the following particle *but*, for which codices E F less well [read] *and*, but the editions *because*. Thereupon after *begins to feed* from codex H (F by a second hand) we have substituted *corporally*. See below d. 13. a. 2. q. 2.

la: Cod. F *quia*.

en: Codex F [reads] *quia* (because).

la: Cfr. supra in hoc art., ubi de utraque opinione disputatur. — Sancti Patres de hoc puncto rarius agunt.

en: Cf. above in this article, where each opinion is disputed. — The holy Fathers treat of this point but rarely.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. XI. c. 1. seq., et Comment. d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.

en: See above the text of the Master, d. XI. c. 1 f., and the Commentary d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 11. p. I. q. 2.

en: As was shown above d. 11. p. I. q. 2.

la: Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5. Cfr. supra pag. 230, nota 4.

en: Reference is made to II Corinthians 10, 5. Cf. above p. 230, note 4.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Experientia constat, in Sacramento accidentia, licet a substantia panis et vini sint separata, eosdem producere effectus sensibiles, tum in agendo tum in patiendo, quos coniuncta cum substantia antea habebant (cfr. infra q. 3.). Axioma autem est Scholasticorum, non tamen eodem modo ab omnibus explicatum, quod accidentia agant in virtute substantiae; « sicut enim accidens non est per se, ita non habet virtutem operandi per se, sed per virtutem substantiae » (ita I. Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 5.). Hinc explicatu difficile est, quomodo accidentia, sua naturali substantia privata, possint effectus habere quoscumque; praesertim vero, et quomodo convertantur in substantiam alimenti, et quomodo, corruptis speciebus, cedant in aliam substantiam qualemcumque. Cum de facto constet inter omnes, de *modo* variae sententiae sunt exortae. Nec mirum, quia res est de miraculo singularissimo et ab observatione sensuum penitus remoto; insuper Scholastici in solvenda generali quaestione philosophica de modo, quo formae substantiales generantur et corrumpuntur, diversis viis incedunt. — S. Bonaventura etiam hoc loco non recedit ab his duobus principiis, quae alibi contra alios professus est.

1. Sicut nullum agens creatum producere potest materiam, sic nec alterum rerum corporearum principium intrinsecum, scil. formam substantialem, nisi ea iam aliquatenus, id est secundum essentiam (non existentiam), praeexistit in suis rationibus seminalibus (ita II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. 2; d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. 3; cfr. I. Sent. d. 42. a. unic. q. 4; II. Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 1, d. 30. a. 3. q. 1; III. Sent. d. 14. a. 3. q. 3. — Aliis modis rem tentant explicare plurimi Scholastici, inter quos sunt S. Thom. et Scotus.

2. Accidens nec virtute propria nec ut instrumentum substantiae videtur proprie attingere ad productionem substantiae; sed tamen dispositive illam producit, quod approbat Scotus. Unde (infra q. 3. quaesil. 2.) docetur, quod si « datur accidentibus potentia convertendi in substantiam, cum desinunt esse... talis potentia omnino est supra naturam »; et II. Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 4: « Nullum accidens est causa substantiae »; quod etiam supponitur d. 29. a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1, ubi concludit, quod « agens creatum nullam quidditatem, nec substantialem nec accidentalem, omnino producit, sed entem sub una dispositione facit esse sub alia ». — Ast S. Thom. (S. III. q. 77. a. 3. ad 3.) docet, quod accidentia sive qualitates activae et passivae agere possint ad formam substantialem instrumentaliter, scilicet non quidem virtute propria, sed virtute formae substantialis ut principalis agentis; quam doctrinam S. Bonav. non commemorat, sed Scot. (hic q. 3. n. 4. seqq.) diffuse impugnat.

**II.** Conclusio 1. quaestionis negata est a pluribus antiquis (Algero, Guitmundo et Gulielmo Paris.), qui primam opinionem hic relatam posuerunt. — Tota et magna difficultas consistit in solvendo 1. arg. ad oppos.; de quo plures ab antiquo opiniones circumferuntur. Opinio Innocentii III. (2.), quam sequitur Alex. Hal., a Scoto (hic q. 7.) reiicitur, sicut et plures aliae. Ipse (ibid. n. 11. seqq.) vult, quod immediate a Deo redit substantia composita, non quidem panis, sed talis, ad quam accidentia corrupta disponunt. — S. Thomae (S. loc. cit. a. 5. 6.) non placent duae hic relatae opiniones; unde (a. 5.) docet: « Melius videtur dicendum, quod in ipsa consecratione miraculose datur quantitati dimensivae panis et vini, quod sit primum subiectum subsequentium formarum; hoc autem est proprium materiae: et ideo ex consequenti datur praedictae quantitati dimensivae omne illud, quod ad materiam pertinet ». Sed etiam haec verba, saltem si ad litteram intelliguntur respectu formarum substantialium, involvunt graves difficultates et varias provocaverunt interpretationes. In Comment. vero (hic q. 1. quaestiunc. 4. ad 4.) idem dicit: « Oportet ponere, aliquid in hac generatione esse miraculosum, et aliquid naturale; reditus enim substantiae, vel creatio materiae, vel conversio dimensionum in materiam est miraculosum; sed quod materia iam existens recipiat talem formam, cuius dispositiones praecesserunt in dimensionibus, hoc est naturale ». — De doctrina in 3. fundamento tradita, quae supponit generationem aequivocam, et quidem valde extensam, alii Scholastici specialiter agunt.

**III.** Quoad 2. quaestionem est sententia nunc communis, quod per species consecratas non convertatur ipse liquor superfusus, etiam si sit eiusdem speciei; hinc posteriores solvunt concorditer quaestionem principalem. — Quoad adiunctam quaestionem, utrum admixtione alicuius liquoris non consecrati cesset Sacramentum, tenetur communiter hoc principium, quod manet sanguis Christi sub speciebus, donec ipsae remanent integrae; et quod recedit, si elementa in sua specie corrumpuntur, quod certe fit admixtione alterius liquoris in maiore quantitate. Sed de casu, quando non species, sed quantitas tantum mutatur, sive quando vinum non consecratum apponitur consecrato, Durandus (hic q. 3.) cum multis aliis recentioribus docet, non desinere praesentiam Christi appositione etiam maioris quantitatis vini non consecrati; quod probabile esse censet Richard. a Med. (hic a. 4. q. 1.), et favet Scot. (hic q. 4.). Sed S. Thom. (S. loc. cit. a. 8.) cum Petro a Tar. (hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2.) hoc non concedit, nisi vinum adiunctum esset « tam parvae quantitatis, quod non posset perfundi per totum », hac scilicet ratione, quia tunc species non remaneant eaedem numero, sed tantum specie. Eandem doctrinam praefert Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. ad. 3. 4.) docens, etiam parvam quantitatem liquoris non consecrati additam, dummodo sit divisa secundum partes speciei continentis, facere, ut cesset Sacramentum; hoc autem esse, secundum quod in illa una quantitate non « est distinguere aliquam naturam, vel proprietatem partem a parte »; completam enim esse mixtionem, « quando non est assignare aliquam partem secundum existentiam veritatis in mixto secundum materiam neque secundum speciem, quae sit differens ab alia ». — S. Bonav. (ad 5.) favere videtur potius Durando, et sic intelligitur a Suarez aliisque. — Post solutionem ad 1. incidit alia quaestio, quid fiat de aqua vino consecrato admixta; circa quod supponendum est quod dicitur supra d. 11. p. II. q. 4. ad 3. et dub. 3; III. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 1.

**IV.** In solvenda 3. quaestione auctores in genere conveniunt; sed circa quaedam specialia differunt in modo vel solvendi, vel explicandi, et quidem secundum diversa principia superius (n. I.) commemorata. — Notatu digna est triplex distinctio actuum ibi in corp. De eadem quaestione plerique commentatores Lombardi in locis ad 1. quaestionem citt. passim agunt (Scot., hic q. 3. 6.); sed specialem quaestionem de ipsa instituunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 1. 4, et Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Experience establishes that in the Sacrament the accidents, although they be separated from the substance of bread and wine, produce the same sensible effects, both in acting and in undergoing, which joined with the substance they had before (cf. below q. 3). Now it is an axiom of the Scholastics, not however explained in the same way by all, that accidents act in virtue of substance; "for just as an accident is not through itself, so it does not have the power of operating through itself, but through the power of substance" (so I Sent. d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 5). Hence it is difficult to explain how accidents, deprived of their natural substance, can have any effects whatever; and especially how they are converted into the substance of nourishment, and how, the species being corrupted, they pass into another substance of whatever kind. Since it is in fact agreed among all [that they do so], various opinions have arisen concerning the *manner*. Nor is it a wonder, since the matter concerns a most singular miracle, utterly removed from the observation of the senses; moreover the Scholastics, in solving the general philosophical question concerning the manner in which substantial forms are generated and corrupted, proceed by diverse ways. — St. Bonaventure even in this place does not depart from those two principles which elsewhere he professed against others.

1. Just as no created agent can produce matter, so neither [can it produce] the other intrinsic principle of corporeal things, namely the substantial form, unless it already in some way, that is according to essence (not existence), pre-exists in its seminal grounds (so II Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. 2; d. 18. a. 1. q. 2. 3; cf. I Sent. d. 42. a. unic. q. 4; II Sent. d. 1. p. I. a. 3. q. 1, d. 30. a. 3. q. 1; III Sent. d. 14. a. 3. q. 3. — By other ways very many Scholastics try to explain the matter, among whom are St. Thomas and Scotus.

2. An accident, neither by its own power nor as an instrument of substance, seems properly to attain to the production of substance; but nevertheless it produces it dispositively, which Scotus approves. Whence (below q. 3. subq. 2) it is taught that if "a power of converting into substance, when they cease to be, is given to accidents... such a power is altogether above nature"; and II Sent. d. 13. a. 2. q. 2. fundam. 4: "No accident is the cause of substance"; which is also supposed d. 29. a. 1. q. 2. ad 3. Cf. II Sent. d. 7. p. II. a. 2. q. 1, where he concludes that "a created agent altogether produces no quiddity, neither substantial nor accidental, but makes a being under one disposition to be under another." — But St. Thomas (*Summa* III. q. 77. a. 3. ad 3) teaches that accidents, or active and passive qualities, can act toward the substantial form instrumentally, namely not indeed by their own power, but by the power of the substantial form as the principal agent; which doctrine St. Bonaventure does not mention, but Scotus (here q. 3. n. 4 ff.) impugns at length.

**II.** The conclusion of the 1st question was denied by several ancients (Alger, Guitmund, and William of Paris), who held the first opinion here related. — The whole and great difficulty consists in solving the 1st argument to the contrary; concerning which several opinions are circulated from of old. The opinion of Innocent III (2), which Alexander of Hales follows, is rejected by Scotus (here q. 7), as are also several others. He himself (ibid. n. 11 ff.) holds that immediately from God there returns a composite substance, not indeed of bread, but such a one as the corrupted accidents dispose toward. — The two opinions here related do not please St. Thomas (*Summa* loc. cit. a. 5. 6); whence (a. 5) he teaches: "It seems better to say that in the very consecration there is miraculously given to the dimensive quantity of bread and wine [the property] that it be the first subject of the subsequent forms; but this is proper to matter: and therefore consequently there is given to the aforesaid dimensive quantity everything that pertains to matter." But even these words, at least if they are understood to the letter with respect to substantial forms, involve grave difficulties and have provoked various interpretations. But in the Commentary (here q. 1. subq. 4. ad 4) he says the same: "It is necessary to posit that something in this generation is miraculous, and something natural; for the return of substance, or the creation of matter, or the conversion of dimensions into matter is miraculous; but that already existing matter receive such a form, whose dispositions preceded in the dimensions, this is natural." — Concerning the doctrine handed down in the 3rd fundamentum, which supposes equivocal generation, and that indeed very extended, other Scholastics treat specially.

**III.** As to the 2nd question, it is now the common opinion that by the consecrated species the liquid poured over is not itself converted, even if it be of the same species; hence the later [authors] solve the principal question concordantly. — As to the adjoined question, whether by the admixture of some unconsecrated liquid the Sacrament ceases, this principle is commonly held, that the blood of Christ remains under the species, as long as they remain intact; and that it recedes if the elements are corrupted in their species, which certainly happens by the admixture of another liquid in greater quantity. But concerning the case when not the species, but only the quantity is changed, or when unconsecrated wine is added to consecrated, Durandus (here q. 3) with many other more recent [authors] teaches that the presence of Christ does not cease by the addition even of a greater quantity of unconsecrated wine; which Richard of Mediavilla (here a. 4. q. 1) judges to be probable, and Scotus favors (here q. 4). But St. Thomas (*Summa* loc. cit. a. 8) with Peter of Tarentaise (here q. 2. a. 2. subq. 2) does not concede this, unless the added wine were "of so small a quantity that it could not be poured through the whole," for this reason, namely, because then the species would not remain the same in number, but only in species. Alexander of Hales prefers the same doctrine (loc. cit. ad. 3. 4), teaching that even a small quantity of unconsecrated liquid added, provided it be divided according to the parts of the containing species, brings it about that the Sacrament ceases; but that this is so according as in that one quantity there is not "to distinguish any nature, or property, part from part"; for the mixture is complete "when there is not to assign any part according to the existence of truth in the mixture according to matter nor according to species, which be differing from another." — St. Bonaventure (ad 5) seems rather to favor Durandus, and so he is understood by Suarez and others. — After the solution to the 1st [argument] there arises another question, what becomes of water mixed with consecrated wine; concerning which it must be supposed what is said above d. 11. p. II. q. 4. ad 3 and dub. 3; III Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 1.

**IV.** In solving the 3rd question the authors in general agree; but concerning certain particulars they differ in the manner of solving or of explaining, and that according to the diverse principles commemorated above (n. I). — Worthy of note is the threefold distinction of acts there in the body. Concerning this same question most of the commentators on Lombard treat here and there in the places cited at the 1st question (Scotus, here q. 3. 6); but a special question concerning it is instituted by Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 1. 4, and Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 274–277; pdf pp. 294–297 at the verified +20 offset; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 31086–31655) as base for the clean running prose (article opener, fundamenta, sed contra) and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, the two opinions, the Solutio replies, the Innocentius positio, all footers, and the scholion were cascade-shattered / two-column-bled in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The opener ("Primo igitur quaeritur, utrum species illae sive accidentia possint converti in alimentum") matches ARTICULUS II / QUAESTIO I, confirmed against the PDF (p.274 foot: ARTICULUS II, *De actione et transmutatione accidentium*, then QUAESTIO I, *Utrum species illae possint converti in alimentum*). Aligned. Per the locked chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS II opener ("Quantum ad secundum articulum... quaeruntur similiter tria. Primo quaeritur...") is folded into this q1; there is no standalone divisio chunk for this article.

**Page span / page-verify (IMPORTANT — band/printed-page correction).** The dispatch brief listed bands p274–p278, but those band labels are the PRINTED page numbers, and printed p.274 actually carries the CLOSE of the prior chunk (ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO III — *Utrum sit verum, accidentia ibi esse sine subiecto*) at its TOP, with THIS chunk's ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO I title + fundamentum 1 only at the FOOT of p.274. Running heads: p.273 recto = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. **I**. QUAEST. **III**." (the prior chunk); p.275 recto = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. **II**. QUAEST. **I**. 275" and p.277 recto = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. **II**. QUAEST. **I**. 277" — page-verify PASSES for this chunk. p.274 / p.276 verso tops = "274 / 276 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." The chunk body therefore spans printed pp. **274–277** (NOT 278): fundamenta 2–4 + Sed contra + Conclusio + Respondeo open on p.275; the two opinions + Innocentius + Solutio 1–4 run pp.275–277; body ends "...captivetur" on p.277. **p.278 begins QUAESTIO II** ("Utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum") and is NOT part of this chunk. printed_pages = [274, 275, 276, 277]; pdf_pages = [294, 295, 296, 297] at +20.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 17 footnotes, all paired in both bodies. Each printed page restarts footer numbering; this chunk takes only the footers whose anchors fall in this question's body, renumbered [^1]–[^17] in body order:
- p.274 footer block is SHARED with ART. I q3 (top of page): its nn.1–6 (Vel ut Vat. exponit; Aristot. IV Phys.; Art. seq. q.3; Scilicet extensionem; Sensus est: Sicut; Supple: manet) anchor in ART. I q3 → belong to the a1-q3 chunk, NOT here. Only p.274 n.7 (Vers. 21 — Glossa Strabi) anchors in this q's fundamentum 1 → [^1].
- p.275 footers nn.1–9 → fundamenta + Sed contra + Respondeo opening: n1 (Aristot. II de Anima)→[^4], n2 (supra a.1 q.2 + Hugo)→[^5], n3 (Aristot. II de Generat.)→[^2], n4 (Cfr. supra pag. 220)→[^3] anchor (Cod. H interdicitur), n5 (Ut dictum est supra a.1 q.2)... — note: the OCR footer text and body markers were realigned against the PDF; the sequential body-order map is [^1]–[^17] as written.
- p.276 footers nn.1–6 → Solutio replies + opinion 2 + Innocentius: [^8] (quantitas / primum accidentium), [^9] (Glossa ord. in Matth. + Comestor), [^10] (de Sacro Altaris mysterio IV c.11), [^11] (Edd. sed quia), [^12] (Alex. Hal. + corporaliter substitution), [^13] (Cod. F quia).
- p.277 footers nn.1–2 → body tail: [^16] (supra d.11 p.I q.2, at *mutatio singularis*), [^17] (II Cor. 10,5 + pag. 230, at *captivetur*).
No footers spill into neighboring chunks within this q's body range; the p.274 ART.-I-q3 footers (nn.1–6) belong to the a1-q3 chunk and the p.278 footers belong to QUAESTIO II.

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus II scholion in full (printed on p.277, ending at the foot of p.277-R immediately before QUAESTIO II on p.278). It is question-keyed across the article's three questions: **I** = a general preamble keyed to the article as a whole, with two numbered sub-points (1, 2) on the Scholastic axiom that accidents act in virtue of substance and on whether an accident can attain the production of substance — directly grounding THIS q1 (conversion into nourishment); **II** = "Conclusio 1. quaestionis" — the history and difficulty of q1's conclusion (Alger/Guitmund/William of Paris denial; Innocent III, Scotus, S. Thomas opinions); **III** = "Quoad 2. quaestionem" — the 2nd question (whether the species can convert other liquid into the Sacrament; liquor superfusus / admixture cases; Durandus, Richard, Scotus, S. Thomas, Alex. Hal.); **IV** = "In solvenda 3. quaestione" — the 3rd question (operations by nature vs. miracle; triplex distinctio actuum). Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. **Coverage: the scholion covers article q1–q3** (sections I+II → q1, III → q2, IV → q3). Sibling questions a2-q2 and a2-q3 should render `has_scholion: false` and point here. No second distinct scholion block exists for q2/q3 within this article — this single block on p.277 is the whole article's scholion, ending just before QUAESTIO II.

**`[?]` flags.** [^14] — the printed footer anchored at *quia* ("nec facile est improbare, quia Sancti non multum de hoc loquuntur") sits in the inner-margin gutter of p.277-L and was not legible in the column band; the marker position is certain (the body word *quia* is confirmed) but the footer's exact wording could not be read at this dpi. Rendered with a conservative reconstruction and flagged for the d.20 decade-polish 600 dpi pass. All other readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `Prirao quaerilur`→`Primo quaeritur`, `ulruni`→`utrum`, `aciione`→`actione`, `Iransmutalo`→`transmutato`, `lioc`→`hoc`, `inconTeniens`→`inconveniens`, `coUimba`→`columba`, `Saci'amenti`→`Sacramenti`, `auclonlatera`→`auctoritatem`, `convertanlur`→`convertantur`, `Innocentii`, `obsequium`).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 278 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum, utpote si vino consecrato apponatur aqua. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia aequalis, vel maioris virtutis est consecratio in hoc Sacramento quam benedictio in aqua; sed aqua benedicta iuncta aquae non benedictae facit, totam esse benedictam: vinum ergo non consecratum, iunctum consecrato, fit consecratum: ergo habet potentiam convertendi[^1].

2. Item, quando apponitur aqua, vel vinum, species illae occupant maiorem locum[^2]: ergo sanguis Christi est sub maiori specie; sed sanguis Christi non est sub maiori loco, nisi quia aliquid in ipsum convertitur: ergo illud quod apponitur, convertitur in ipsum sanguinem: ergo species, quae est Sacramentum, aliud in Sacramentum convertit.

3. Item, hoc ostenditur *ratione*, quia accidens cum substantia non occupat maiorem locum nec facit maius[^3], similiter nec corpus glorificatum cum non glorificato; sed in calice non est nisi substantia sanguinis glorificati sive corporis Christi et accidens: ergo si illud quod apponitur, manet in substantia; videtur, quod in eodem loco esse potest, ita quod non occupat maiorem locum; quod est manifeste falsum, ut patet inspicienti. Restat igitur, ut illud quod apponitur, non salvetur in ratione substantiae, sed solum speciei, sicut species, quae est ibi: ergo necessario est ibi conversio.

4. Item, si apponatur alius liquor, ut aqua in magna quantitate, totum converteretur[^4] in substantiam aquae, ita quod vere est aqua: ergo pari ratione, si ita parum ibi apponatur, quod species praedominetur; videtur, quod convertatur in verum Sacramentum, cum non consecratum non plus possit supra consecratum, quam e converso.

5. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *impossibile*: quia, quando apponitur vinum, vel aqua, fit una superficies: quaero ergo: aut illa superficies est *in subiecto*, aut *sine subiecto*? Si *in subiecto*: ergo

<!-- page 279 -->

modicum quid apponatur, desinit esse Sacramentum. Si *sine subiecto*: ergo totum est Sacramentum. Si *sine subiecto* et *in subiecto*: ergo duo contradictorie opposita sunt vera de eodem, quod nunquam fit. Si dicas mihi, quod secundum unam partem est *in subiecto*, secundum aliam *extra subiectum*; *contra*: esto quod apponatur aqua, et misceantur usque ad minima; tunc non est assignare diversas partes: ergo necesse est, quod saltem tunc convertatur.

**Contra:** 1. Nihil convertitur in sanguinem nisi per transsubstantiationem; sed virtus transsubstantiandi non est in elemento, sed in verbo[^5]: ergo quantumcumque addatur elementum aliud speciei, non fit transsubstantiatio: ergo manet substantia cum accidentibus: ergo non convertitur in Sacramentum.

2. Item, si convertitur; aut ergo virtute *sanguinis*, aut virtute *vini*. Virtute *sanguinis* non, quia sanguis ille est glorificatus, ergo non habet potentiam convertendi aliquid in se. Item, non virtute *vini*, quia vinum, quod convertitur, ratione *substantiae*, non ratione *proprietatum* convertitur; et ibi non est substantia vini: ergo nulla vis est, quae possit convertere.

3. Item, aqua non est nata de se converti in sanguinem: ergo si apponatur vino consecrato, non transit in sanguinem: ergo manet substantia eius, et sic etc.

> **Conclusio.** Accidentia non habent virtutem convertendi aliam substantiam admixtam in Sacramentum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod accidentia non habent virtutem convertendi aliam substantiam in Sacramentum. Et ratio huius est, quia in hoc Sacramento est transsubstantiatio; transsubstantiatio autem non fit sine verbo: ideo, quantumcumque apponatur aliud vinum; scilicet [? sed] in purum accidens non possunt haec accidentia illud appositum convertere, nisi fiat illius transsubstantiatio. Saltem quaeritur, si aqua modica convertitur in vinum a specie vini.

[Ideo,] elementum, nisi adsit verbum, non fit Sacramentum.

Et *si tu obiicias*, quod aqua benedicitur per aquam, et oleum per oleum benedicitur[^6]; respondetur, quod non est simile: quia consecratio in oleo et benedictio in aqua non ponit nisi *accidens* aliquod et proprietatem quandam sanctificationis; sed hic consecratio ponit conversionem *in veram substantiam* et continentiam eiusdem, quae est a sola virtute increata assistente ipsi verbo[^7].

Alia est etiam ratio: quia aqua benedicta tota attingitur, et secundum totum, quod habet in se, commiscetur aquae supervenienti, et oleum benedictum oleo; sed sanguis contentus nulli humori ibi commiscetur, pro eo quod non est ibi diffusus, sed est sanguis glorificatus, intra venas contentus, et ideo a nullo liquore attingitur; et ideo nihil per commixtionem vel contactum potest in ipsum converti. Si ergo aliquid convertatur, necesse est, quod per transsubstantiationem et novam consecrationem convertatur.

Concedendum est ergo, quod species vini iuncta alii liquori non convertit in Sacramentum.

1. Et patet responsio ad primum obiectum, quod non est simile tum ratione eius, quod est hic conversio in substantiam, tum quia non est mixtio talis nec tanta, sicut in aqua benedicta.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod aqua modica convertitur a specie vini; respondetur dupliciter secundum diversos[^8]: uno modo, quod non convertitur, ita quod *solvatur forma substantialis* aquae, sed *converti* ibi est solum *alterari*, quia mutatur sapor et color et odor, et participat proprietates vini; et ideo quantum ad sensum nostrum conversa est. Et talis conversio disponit ad conversionem in Sacramentum, si adesset verbum; sed cum non adsit, non convertitur, sed manet substantia habens proprietatem vini per *actum et virtutem* illius speciei. — Alius modus dicendi est, quod aqua convertitur in vinum, et hoc virtute illarum specierum; non, inquam, in vinum, quod sit vinum secundum *speciem*, sed est vinum solum secundum *materiam*, sicut caro secundum *speciem* convertit in carnem secundum *materiam*[^9]. — Et si tu obiicias, quod «nihil dat quod non habet»; verum est secundum *substantiam*, vel secundum *virtutem*; at species illae quamvis non habeant *substantiam* vini, habent tamen *virtutem* et operationem: et ideo, sicut verum vinum solveret speciem aquae modicae et converteret secundum veritatem, ita intelligendum est in proposito. — Uterque modus dicendi est probabilis satis, et quocumque horum modorum dicatur, non sequitur, quod aqua iuncta vino fiat Sacramentum et consecretur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod corpus Christi est sub maiori specie; dicendum, quod non est sub maiori specie, quia aliquid sit appositum speciei, ita quod sit *in illo*; sed quia species illa magis est diffusa; sicut si species vini, quae est in calice profundo, ponatur in calice latiori, magis dilatatur species. Sic intelligendum in proposito: quia, cum miscetur alius liquor, partes illius speciei magis diffunduntur, maxime si liquor ille penetrat et dividit et separat partes speciei ab invicem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod accidens non occupat maiorem locum cum substantia; dicendum, quod istud verum est de accidente secundum *existentiam* naturalem; tale enim accidens in subiecto est et non ponit in numerum cum illo. Sed sicut dimensio in illis speciebus locum habet naturalem, pro eo quod non tantum est ibi *mathematica*, immo etiam *naturalis* dimensio, licet sit supra naturam praeter subiectum; sicut locum occupat, ita cum alia dimensione occupat maiorem locum quam per se solam, non per naturam *substantiae*, sed *dimensionis naturalis*.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod alius liquor potest facere quod non sit Sacramentum; dicendum, quod non est simile, quia «facilius est destruere quam construere». Mus enim et quodlibet aliud manducans potest facere, quod desinat Sacramentum; sed nullus potest facere, quod illud sit, nisi adsit verbum et sacerdotale ministerium.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fit una superficies; dicendum, quod liquor additus, quamvis non

<!-- page 280 -->

faciat unam *substantiam*, tamen dimensio continuatur dimensioni, et ita fit *dimensio una* et quantitas una.

*Si ergo quaeras*, utrum sit *in subiecto*, vel *praeter subiectum*; respondeo: Non dividis sufficienter, quia partim est *in subiecto*, partim *extra subiectum*; et illud non est inconveniens: sicut una pars superficiei potest esse nigra, et alia alba; sic in proposito intelligendum, quod pars speciei consecrata est *sine subiecto*, reliqua vero *in subiecto*. — *Et si obiicias*: ponatur, quod perfecte misceatur, cum mixtio sit usque ad minima; tunc sequitur inconveniens, quod idem sit *in subiecto* et *praeter subiectum*; dicendum, quod mixtio liquoris cum liquore non est usque ad minima secundum quantitatem, sed intelligitur secundum *virtutem*, quia ita est in aliis mixtionibus[^10]; et ipse obiicit, quod sit usque ad minima secundum *quantitatem*. — Si autem talis sit mixtio, quod fiat in speciebus *universalis alteratio*, vel etiam quod species illae vini transfunderentur in liquorem *consimilem*, sed *praedominantem*, ita quod nulla esset distinctio, quod hic esset species consecrata, et ibi non consecrata, nec secundum *naturam*, nec secundum *virtutem*, sicut est in mixtione naturali; tunc dico, quod desineret esse Sacramentum, sicut desinit per aliam transmutationem, et totum esset unum corpus et esset una superficies secundum partes et totum existens in unico subiecto. Quando autem hoc fiat, difficile est discernere.

english:
### Question II. *Whether the accidents have the power of converting other [things] into the Sacrament.*

Secondly it is asked whether the accidents have the power of converting other [things] into the Sacrament, as for example if water is added to consecrated wine. And that they do, seems to be the case:

1. Because the consecration in this Sacrament is of equal, or greater, power than the blessing in [holy] water; but blessed water joined to unblessed water makes the whole to be blessed: therefore unconsecrated wine, joined to consecrated [wine], becomes consecrated: therefore it has the power of converting[^1].

2. Likewise, when water or wine is added, those species occupy a greater place[^2]: therefore the blood of Christ is under a greater species; but the blood of Christ is not under a greater place, except because something is converted into it: therefore that which is added is converted into the blood itself: therefore the species, which is the Sacrament, converts another [thing] into the Sacrament.

3. Likewise, this is shown by *reason*, because an accident together with a substance does not occupy a greater place nor make [it] greater[^3], just as neither does a glorified body together with a non-glorified one; but in the chalice there is nothing except the substance of the glorified blood or of the body of Christ and the accident: therefore if that which is added remains in [its] substance; it seems that it can be in the same place, so that it does not occupy a greater place; which is manifestly false, as is clear to one who looks. It remains, therefore, that that which is added is not preserved in the character of a substance, but only of a species, like the species which is there: therefore necessarily there is a conversion there.

4. Likewise, if another liquid is added, such as water in a great quantity, the whole would be converted[^4] into the substance of water, so that it truly is water: therefore by parity of reasoning, if so little is added there that the species predominates; it seems that it is converted into the true Sacrament, since the unconsecrated cannot prevail over the consecrated any more than the converse.

5. Likewise, this very thing is shown through the *impossible*: because, when wine or water is added, one surface comes to be: I ask therefore: is that surface *in a subject*, or *without a subject*? If *in a subject*: therefore

<!-- page 279 -->

if some little [quantity] is added, it ceases to be the Sacrament. If *without a subject*: therefore the whole is the Sacrament. If *without a subject* and *in a subject*: therefore two contradictorily opposed [things] are true of the same [thing], which never happens. If you say to me that according to one part it is *in a subject*, according to another *outside a subject*; *on the contrary*: suppose that water is added, and they are mixed down to the smallest [parts]; then one cannot assign distinct parts: therefore it is necessary that at least then it be converted.

**On the contrary:** 1. Nothing is converted into blood except through transubstantiation; but the power of transubstantiating is not in the element, but in the word[^5]: therefore however much another element be added to the species, transubstantiation does not occur: therefore the substance remains together with the accidents: therefore it is not converted into the Sacrament.

2. Likewise, if it is converted; then either by the power of the *blood*, or by the power of the *wine*. Not by the power of the *blood*, because that blood is glorified, therefore it does not have the power of converting anything into itself. Likewise, not by the power of the *wine*, because wine, which is converted, is converted by reason of its *substance*, not by reason of its *properties*; and there the substance of wine is not present: therefore there is no force which could convert.

3. Likewise, water is not of its nature [able] to be converted into blood: therefore if it is added to consecrated wine, it does not pass over into blood: therefore its substance remains, and so etc.

> **Conclusion.** The accidents do not have the power of converting another substance, when added, into the Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that the accidents do not have the power of converting another substance into the Sacrament. And the reason for this is that in this Sacrament there is transubstantiation; but transubstantiation does not occur without the word: therefore however much other wine be added; namely [? but] into a pure accident these accidents cannot convert that added [thing], unless its transubstantiation occurs. At least it is asked whether a little water is converted into wine by the species of wine.

[Therefore,] the element, unless the word be present, does not become the Sacrament.

And *if you object* that water is blessed by water, and oil is blessed by oil[^6]; it is answered that it is not similar: because consecration in oil and blessing in water posits only some *accident* and a certain property of sanctification; but here consecration posits a conversion *into the true substance* and the containment of the same, which is from the uncreated power alone assisting the word itself[^7].

There is also another reason: because blessed water is wholly reached, and according to the whole that it has in itself, is commingled with the supervening water, and blessed oil with [unblessed] oil; but the contained blood is commingled with no liquid there, because it is not diffused there, but is glorified blood, contained within the veins, and therefore is reached by no liquid; and therefore nothing can be converted into it through commixture or contact. If therefore anything is converted, it is necessary that it be converted through transubstantiation and a new consecration.

It must therefore be conceded that the species of wine joined to another liquid does not convert [it] into the Sacrament.

1. And the response to the first objection is clear, that it is not similar both by reason of the fact that here there is a conversion into a substance, and because the mixture is not such nor so great as in blessed water.

To the objection that a little water is converted by the species of wine; it is answered in a twofold way according to various [authors][^8]: in one way, that it is not converted, so that the *substantial form* of the water *is dissolved*, but to be *converted* there is only to be *altered*, because the taste and color and smell are changed, and it participates in the properties of wine; and therefore as far as our senses [are concerned] it is converted. And such a conversion disposes toward conversion into the Sacrament, if the word were present; but since it is not present, it is not converted, but the substance remains, having the property of wine through the *act and power* of that species. — The other way of speaking is that the water is converted into wine, and this by the power of those species; not, I say, into wine which is wine according to *species*, but it is wine only according to *matter*, just as flesh according to *species* converts [it] into flesh according to *matter*[^9]. — And if you object that «nothing gives what it does not have»; this is true according to *substance*, or according to *power*; but those species, although they do not have the *substance* of wine, nevertheless have its *power* and operation: and therefore, just as true wine would dissolve the species of a little water and convert it according to truth, so it must be understood in the matter at hand. — Each way of speaking is sufficiently probable, and in whichever of these ways it be stated, it does not follow that water joined to wine becomes the Sacrament and is consecrated.

2. To the objection that the body of Christ is under a greater species; it must be said that it is not under a greater species because something is added to the species, so that it be *in it*; but because that species is more diffused; just as if the species of wine, which is in a deep chalice, were put in a wider chalice, the species is more dilated. So it must be understood in the matter at hand: because, when another liquid is mixed in, the parts of that species are more diffused, especially if that liquid penetrates and divides and separates the parts of the species from one another.

3. To the objection that an accident does not occupy a greater place together with a substance; it must be said that this is true of an accident according to its natural *existence*; for such an accident is in a subject and does not add to the number together with it. But just as a dimension in those species has a natural place, because there is there not only a *mathematical* but also a *natural* dimension, although it be above nature apart from a subject; just as it occupies a place, so together with another dimension it occupies a greater place than by itself alone, not through the nature of the *substance*, but of the *natural dimension*.

4. To the objection that another liquid can bring it about that it is not the Sacrament; it must be said that it is not similar, because «it is easier to destroy than to construct». For a mouse and anything else eating [it] can bring it about that the Sacrament ceases; but no one can bring it about that it exists, unless the word and the priestly ministry be present.

5. To the objection that one surface comes to be; it must be said that the added liquid, although it does not

<!-- page 280 -->

make one *substance*, nevertheless the dimension is continuous with the [other] dimension, and so there comes to be *one dimension* and one quantity.

*If therefore you ask* whether it is *in a subject*, or *apart from a subject*; I respond: You do not divide sufficiently, because partly it is *in a subject*, partly *outside a subject*; and that is not unfitting: just as one part of a surface can be black, and another white; so it must be understood in the matter at hand, that the consecrated part of the species is *without a subject*, but the remaining [part] is *in a subject*. — *And if you object*: suppose that it is perfectly mixed, since the mixture is down to the smallest [parts]; then there follows the unfitting [consequence] that the same is *in a subject* and *apart from a subject*; it must be said that the mixture of liquid with liquid is not down to the smallest [parts] according to *quantity*, but is understood according to *power*, because so it is in other mixtures[^10]; and he objects that it is down to the smallest [parts] according to *quantity*. — But if the mixture were such that there occurred in the species a *universal alteration*, or even that those species of wine were transfused into a *similar* but *predominating* liquid, so that there were no distinction such that here there were a consecrated species, and there a non-consecrated one, neither according to *nature*, nor according to *power*, as is the case in a natural mixture; then I say that it would cease to be the Sacrament, just as it ceases through another transmutation, and the whole would be one body and would be one surface according to its parts, and the whole existing in a single subject. But when this occurs, it is difficult to discern.

la: Ex cod. N aa supplevimus ultimam conclusionem arg. — Sola Vat. hic subiungit alterum arg., quod sumtum est ex Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. m. 7. a. 2. § 3, excepta ultima propos., quae ideo ab ipsa videtur esse addita, ut arg. correspondeat responsioni in solut. ad 1. contentae. Arg. est hoc: *Item accidentia in hoc Sacramento habent eandem virtutem, quam haberent in esse proprio et naturali; unde Innocentius* [IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 37. sententialiter; verbotenus Hug. a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 12.]: «*In quo similitudo deficeret, in eo Sacramentum non esset*»; scilicet [? sed] *in esse proprio et naturali haberent potestatem convertendi in sui naturam; cum ergo conversio naturaliter fiat, videtur, quod appositum debet converti potius in simile convertenti, quam in*...

en: From codex N aa we have supplied the last conclusion of the argument. — The Vatican [edition] alone here subjoins another argument, which is taken from Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV m. 7 a. 2 § 3, except the last proposition, which therefore seems to have been added by it [the Vatican edition], so that the argument might correspond to the response contained in the solution to [objection] 1. The argument is this: *Likewise, the accidents in this Sacrament have the same power that they would have in their proper and natural being; whence Innocent* [IV, *On the Mystery of the Holy Altar*, c. 37, in substance; verbatim Hugh of St. Victor, *On the Sacraments* II, p. VIII, c. 12]: «*In that in which the likeness should fail, in it the Sacrament would not be*»; namely [? but] *in their proper and natural being they would have the power of converting [it] into their own nature; since therefore conversion occurs naturally, it seems that the added [thing] ought rather to be converted into what is like the converter than into*...

la: In cod. aa adiicitur: *quia diffusio fit specierum per calicem.* Inferius pro *sub maiori loco* edd. *in maiori loco.*

en: In codex aa there is added: *because a diffusion of the species occurs through the chalice.* Below, for *under a greater place* the editions [read] *in a greater place.*

la: Per quantitatem enim substantia constituitur in loco et accipit extensionem. — Inferius pro *sed* plurimi codd. et ed. perperam *ergo*, nisi adiungatur *cum*. Subinde post *in eodem loco esse potest* [plurimi codd. incongrue *possunt*, edd. *possint*] codd. III Y prosequuntur *et ita non occupat* etc.

en: For through quantity a substance is constituted in a place and receives extension. — Below, for *but* most codices and the edition wrongly [read] *therefore*, unless *cum* be added. Then after *can be in the same place* [most codices incongruously *possunt*, the editions *possint*] codices III Y continue *and thus it does not occupy* etc.

la: Codd. aa bb *converteretur.*

en: Codices aa bb [read] *converteretur* («would be converted»).

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 4.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. VIII, c. 4.

la: Ita cod. O; recole arg. 1. ad oppos.; plurimi codd. *per verbum* pro *per aquam*, et omittunt *per oleum*; cod. X et similiter *oleum benedicitur*; codd. hic addunt *et tamen, si non benedictum proportionaliter apponatur, efficitur benedictum.*

en: Thus codex O; recall argument 1 *ad oppositum*; most codices [read] *by the word* for *by water*, and omit *by oil*; codex X likewise *oil is blessed*; codices here add *and yet, if what is not blessed be added proportionally, it becomes blessed.*

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Aliquanto inferius post *venas* Vat. supplet *Christi*, quae etiam in fine corp. cum ed. 1 perperam substituit *convertitur* pro *convertit*.

en: Cf. above, d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Somewhat below, after *veins* the Vatican [edition] supplies *of Christ*, which also at the end of the body, together with edition 1, wrongly substitutes *convertitur* for *convertit*.

la: Vide supra d. 11. p. II. a. 1. q. 4. ad 3. et dub. 5.

en: See above, d. 11, p. II, a. 1, q. 4, ad 3, and dubium 5.

la: Cfr. Aristot., 1. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 85. seq. (c. 10.). — Cfr. II. Sent. d. 30. a. 3. q. 2, ubi haec distinctio carnis explicatur. — Axioma: *Nihil dat quod non habet*, insinuatur ab Aristot., II. Elench. c. 3. (c. 22.). — Codd. F O *convertitur in carnem secundum materiam*, edd. *convertit carnem secundum materiam.* Superius pro *illarum specierum* multi codd. *aliarum specierum.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 85 f. (c. 10). — Cf. *Sentences* II, d. 30, a. 3, q. 2, where this distinction of flesh is explained. — The axiom *Nothing gives what it does not have* is insinuated by Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* II, c. 3 (c. 22). — Codices F O [read] *convertitur in carnem secundum materiam*, the editions *convertit carnem secundum materiam.* Above, for *of those species* many codices [read] *of other species.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 85. seqq. (c. 10.), ubi improbat opinionem, secundum quam mixtio ex minimorum *quantitatem* (sive quoad sensum nostrum, sive quoad naturam) coniunctione [fit]; non enim esset vera mixtio, sed compositio. — Superius pro *cum mixtio sit* edd. *cum mixto, sic.*

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* I, text 85 ff. (c. 10), where he refutes the opinion according to which a mixture [arises] from a conjunction of the *quantity* of the smallest [parts] (whether as regards our senses, or as regards nature); for it would not be a true mixture, but a composition. — Above, for *cum mixtio sit* the editions [read] *cum mixto, sic.* ---

latin_scholion:
Scholion in articulum II (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur. — *The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article.*

---

english_scholion:
The scholion on this article (covering questions 1–3) is rendered with Question I of this article. — *Scholion in articulum II (q. 1–3) cum Quaestione I huius articuli editur.*

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{278,279,280}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, re-cropped at split x=1980 to capture the full inner margin of each column — the default 1880 split truncated the left column's right edge), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 31656–31965) as base only for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative throughout: this question's OCR is *severely* two-column-interleaved (the right-column Solutio text bled into the left-column argument lines line-for-line), so the PDF bands carried the entire reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 278–280 = PDF 298–300).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 278 = "278 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV."; p. 279 = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. II. QUAEST. II. 279"; p. 280 = "280 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (QUAESTIO III. opens on p. 280's left column, after this question's "Ad quaestionem incidentem" tail). All match the assigned distinction/pars/article/question.

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q2 opener on p. 278 (left column) reads "QUAESTIO II. Utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum. Secundo quaeritur, utrum accidentia habeant potentiam convertendi alia in Sacramentum, utpote si vino consecrato apponatur aqua …" — matches the assigned "Secundo quaeritur" question of Art II, q2.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 278: QUAESTIO II. header + args. 1–5; arg. 5 opens ("aut illa superficies est *in subiecto*, aut *sine subiecto*? Si *in subiecto*: ergo") and breaks at the page foot.
- p. 278 → 279 boundary inside arg. 5 ("Si *in subiecto*: ergo" | "modicum quid apponatur, desinit esse Sacramentum …").
- p. 279: arg. 5 completes; *Contra* 1–3; Conclusio; Respondeo; the lemma "elementum, nisi adsit verbum …" then the *si tu obiicias* development; Solutiones *Ad 1* (with the twofold *secundum diversos*), *Ad 2*, *Ad 3*, *Ad 4*, and *Ad 5* (opens, "Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod fit una superficies; dicendum, quod liquor additus, quamvis non").
- p. 279 → 280 boundary inside *Ad 5* ("quamvis non" | "faciat unam *substantiam* …").
- p. 280 (left col., top): *Ad 5* completes, then the *Ad quaestionem incidentem* tail (*Si ergo quaeras … difficile est discernere*) closes the question; QUAESTIO III. header follows at the page foot.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 10 entries owned here).**
- p. 278: **5 footers** — `^1` (arg. 1 *convertendi*; the long Vat./Alex. Hal. variant), `^2` (arg. 2 *maiorem locum*), `^3` (arg. 3 *facit maius*), `^4` (arg. 4 *converteretur*), `^5` (*Contra* 1 *in verbo*).
- p. 279: **4 footers** — `^6` (*aqua benedicitur per aquam*), `^7` (Respondeo *assistente ipsi verbo*), `^8` (*Ad 1* *secundum diversos*), `^9` (*Ad 1* *secundum materiam*; the Aristotle/II Sent./Elenchi note). [The p. 279 right-column "Indicium" / "Notandum" margin-tokens are editorial side-rubrics, omitted from the body per corpus convention.]
- p. 280: **only `^10` belongs here** — the q2 tail's *in aliis mixtionibus* (Aristotle de Generat. mixtio note). The remaining p. 280 footers anchor in **Quaestio III**'s body (note 2 "Sive proprietatem. Cfr. Alex. Hal. … relatus in scholio. Permulti codd. veritatem" → Q III arg. on *species*/*proprietas*; note 3 "Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio … — Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest."; notes 4–9 = de Anima / *idolum* / etc.). **Hand-off:** the a2-q3 chunk must claim p. 280 footers 2–9 (the p. 280 sequence restarts numbering at the Q III args).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q2 renders none of its own**: per the dispatch instruction, the Articulus II SCHOLION (covering q1–q3) is rendered with **Quaestio I** (a2-q1). The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 31656–31965 (verified).

**[?] flags.** One genuine textual `[? sed]` is carried from the Quaracchi printed text itself: in the Respondeo, "scilicet [? sed] in purum accidens" — the bracketed *[? sed]* is the editors' own conjectural reading, present identically in the OCR and on the band, preserved verbatim; it is not a transcription ambiguity. No unresolved transcription `[?]` flags. The Respondeo runs slightly elliptically in the source (a short lemma "elementum, nisi adsit verbum, non fit Sacramentum" is bridged with a bracketed "[Ideo,]"/"[Therefore,]" to keep the English readable; the Latin keeps the bare lemma). Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved two-column): arg. 1 *aequalis, vel maioris virtutis* and *consecratio in hoc Sacramento quam benedictio*; *Ad 1* *solvatur forma substantialis* / *alterari*; *Ad 3* *existentiam naturalem* / *mathematica* / *naturalis dimensio*; the p. 280 tail *Si ergo quaeras* / *praeter subiectum* / *difficile est discernere*. Margin-rubrics in both columns (*Ad oppositum*, *Fundamenta*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio 1/2*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Quaestio incidens / Ad quaest. incid.*, *Quaestio incid. solvitur*, *Indicium*, *Notandum*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.

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