title: Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 231 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum virtus transsubstantiandi sit data verbo prolato, an solum sit virtus Verbi increati.*

Tertio quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiationis per comparationem ad verbum; et quaeritur, utrum virtus transsubstantiandi sit data verbo prolato, an solum sit virtus Verbi increati. Et quod verbo prolato, videtur.

1. Ambrosius[^1]: «Sermo Christi creaturam mutat»; sed omnis actio, quae est ab aliquo, est mediante virtute, sed haec mediante verbo prolato: ergo etc.

2. Item, Eusebius[^2]: «Invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in substantiam corporis et sanguinis sui verbi sui secreta potestate commutat».

3. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia omne adveniens alicui, quod est in sola potestate ad aliquid, et faciens ipsum esse in actu, habet virtutem aliquam[^3]; sed verbo adveniente ad elementum, statim transit in corpus Christi: ergo in verbo est aliqua virtus ad hoc.

4. Item, cum non sit virtus in speciebus; si non est virtus in verbo, tunc ergo non est Sacramentum novae legis, cuius est «efficere quod figurat[^4]».

5. Item, in omni naturali opere, ubi Deus operatur mediante creatura, data est virtus creaturae, per quam operatur[^5]: ergo simili ratione in opere miraculi: ergo si illud operatur per verbum, patet, quod verbo collata est virtus.

**Contra:**
1. Augustinus *de Verbis Domini*[^6]: «Sicut de Virgine per Spiritum sanctum Christi caro sine coitu creatur, ita per eundem ex substantia panis et vini idem corpus Christi mystice consecratur»; sed illud fit solum virtute increata: ergo et istud.

2. Item, Ambrosius[^7]: «Sermo Christi creaturam mutat»; «quis Sermo? Hic, per quem omnia facta sunt»; sed illud Verbum est increatum, non creatum: ergo etc.

3. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia corpus Christi est nobilissimum inter creata; sed potentia transsubstantiandi potest in illud, quia convertit aliud in ipsum; sed nihil potest supra aliud, nisi quod est nobilius[^8]; et nihil creatum est ipso nobilius: ergo nulla virtute creata fit: ergo nec virtute verbi prolati.

4. Item, si virtus est data verbo a Christo, aut verbo in mente, aut in scripto, aut in prolatione. Non in mente nec in scripto: ergo in prolatione; sed verbum, quod Christus protulit, nunquam potest resumi[^9]: ergo dicitur aliud. Sed illud nunquam fuit nisi nunc: ergo nec data est ei potestas sive virtus.

5. Item, si datur in prolatione; aut subito, aut successive. Si *successive*, ergo successive operatur, quod stultum est dicere, ut manifestum est. Non enim dare est, quod una pars *panis* primo transsubstantietur quam alia, cum verbum respiciat aequaliter totum; nec quod una pars *Christi* prius sit quam alia, quia tunc partes corporis Christi glorificati essent separabiles; quod stultum est dicere[^10]. Si *subito*, aut in *principio*, aut in *medio*, aut in *fine*. Si in *principio*, et statim cum est, operatur: ergo in principio fit transsubstantiatio: ergo si non compleret verba, factum esset. Similiter de *medio*. Si in *fine*; sed verbum in fine non est: ergo datur non-enti. Item, si in *fine*; constat, quod desinente verbo, desinit et virtus: ergo in eodem instanti virtus incipit et desinit, et est et non est.

6. Item, si datur virtus, aut *toti*, aut *alicui* parti. Si *toti*: ergo aut quaelibet pars habet *totam* virtutem, aut *partem*. Si *totam*: ergo quaelibet pars facit; si *partem* virtutis; cum partes non sint simul, nec erit virtus simul nec operatio simul. Si *alicui* parti, quaero, cui?

7. Item, si Deus dat virtutem verbo in prolatione; tunc, cum verbum prolatum deficiat, videtur similiter, quod illa nobilis virtus statim desinat esse; et inconveniens esset, quod Deus sic tam nobilem virtutem daret, quae statim desinat esse.

<!-- page 232 -->

8. Item, si corrumpitur, quaero: in quid cedit? aut in *aliquid*, aut in *nihil*. In *aliquid* non, quia non ex aliquo; si in *nihil*, tunc videtur contra communem sententiam et Sanctorum et philosophorum, quae est, quod nihil quod corrumpitur, cedat omnino in non-ens.

### Conclusio.

> *Intelligibilior est opinio, quod non sit data verbo aliqua qualitas, quae operetur transsubstantiationem, sed tantum efficax ordinatio ad hoc.*

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc dicendum, quod hic est duplex opinio, sicut tactum est supra distinctione prima.

Quidam enim ponunt, quod datur verbis aliqua *virtus spiritualis*, per quam operantur transsubstantiationem, Deo nihilominus intime operante. Et haec virtus verbi habet *posse* et respicit *panem*; non enim se extendit ad *corpus Christi*. — Et est exemplum: si esset dator formarum, sicut aliqui posuerunt, agens particulare solum operaretur per comparationem ad terminum *a quo*, non *ad quem*. Et datur haec virtus verbo *supra naturam* et *supra intellectum* et datur *subito*, ut dicunt. Sed non oportet, quod *operetur* statim, cum datur, quia operatur secundum nutum dantis. Et est virtus *simplex*, operans *instantanee*; et tamen est in *subiecto composito* et *successivo*, quoniam est ibi supra naturam.

Sed quia difficillimum et non intelligibile videtur, quando illa virtus datur verbo, utrum *tunc* detur, vel *ante* sit data, et *quomodo* et *qualiter datur*, et quomodo operatur, si ponatur esse aliqua qualitas in verbo; propterea est alia via, quod *virtus verbi* extenso nomine dicitur, non quia aliqua qualitas sit data verbo, per quam operatur, sed ex divina institutione hoc firmatum est, ut, isto verbo prolato a sacerdote super panem cum intentione conficiendi, panis transsubstantietur. Unde ad prolationem illius verbi Verbum increatum facit. Illa ergo *ordinatio* verbi infallibilis ad talem effectum *virtus* dicitur, quae non est aliqua qualitas data verbo nec aliquid de novo creatum.

Et ex hoc patent rationes ad utramque partem. Ad argumenta, quia primae procedunt de virtute *communiter* dicta, praeter ultimum. Ad quod dicendum, quod non est simile, quia natura est agens praecipuum[^11] et efficiens, sed hic solus Deus est influens.

Rationes ad oppositum patent, quia concedo, quod sicut rerum creatio est a sola virtute increata, sic et transsubstantiatio. Sed in hoc est hic additio, quia hoc fit ad prolationem verbi creati, illud sine aliquo ministerio.

Aliae rationes omnes patent, quia nihil *absolutum* est verbis datum, sed Christus unica institutione non tantum verbum, quod protulit, sed omne consimile prolatum a sacerdote supra naturam ordinavit, ut statim, ipso prolato, ipse sacerdos invisibilis assistens converteret. Unde nihil datur verbo de novo, quando sacerdos illud pronuntiat. Sed illa institutione primaria efficacem habuit ordinationem ad hoc: propter quod non immerito dicitur habere *virtutem*. — Per hunc etiam modum intelligo, Sacramenta novae legis esse *causam* et *efficere*, sicut supra[^12] determinatum est: non quia gratiam donent, sed quia efficacem ordinationem habent ex divina pactione ad gratiam. Non sic Sacramenta veteris legis, excepta circumcisione[^13]. — Habet tamen nihilominus hoc Sacramentum causalitatem ratione *rei contentae*, scilicet carnis Christi, quae ad gratiam disponit. — Et haec positio magnorum est et bene intelligentium[^14].

---

english:
### Question III. *Whether the power of transubstantiating is given to the uttered word, or is the power of the uncreated Word alone.*

Thirdly, inquiry is made concerning the power of transubstantiation in relation to the word; and it is asked whether the power of transubstantiating is given to the uttered word, or is the power of the uncreated Word alone. And that it is [given] to the uttered word, it seems thus.

1. Ambrose[^1]: "The speech of Christ changes the creature"; but every action that is from anything is by means of a power, and this [action is] by means of the uttered word: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Eusebius[^2]: "The invisible priest changes the visible creatures into the substance of the body and blood of his Word by the secret power of his word."

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*, because everything that comes to something which is in mere potency toward something, and makes it to be in act, has some power[^3]; but when the word comes to the element, it [the element] at once passes into the body of Christ: therefore in the word there is some power for this.

4. Likewise, since there is no power in the species; if there is no power in the word, then therefore there is no Sacrament of the new law, whose property is "to effect what it figures[^4]."

5. Likewise, in every natural work, where God operates by means of a creature, a power is given to the creature, by which it operates[^5]: therefore by like reasoning in the work of a miracle: therefore if that [transubstantiation] is worked through the word, it is plain that a power has been conferred on the word.

**On the contrary:**
1. Augustine, *On the Words of the Lord*[^6]: "Just as from the Virgin, through the Holy Spirit, the flesh of Christ is created without intercourse, so through the same [Spirit] the same body of Christ is mystically consecrated out of the substance of bread and wine"; but that comes about solely by the uncreated power: therefore this also.

2. Likewise, Ambrose[^7]: "The speech of Christ changes the creature"; "which speech? This one, through which all things were made"; but that Word is uncreated, not created: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, it seems by *reason*, because the body of Christ is the most noble among created things; but the power of transubstantiating has efficacy upon it, because it converts another thing into it; but nothing has power over another thing unless it be more noble[^8]; and nothing created is more noble than it [the body of Christ]: therefore it comes about by no created power: therefore not by the power of the uttered word either.

4. Likewise, if power is given to the word by Christ, [it is given] either to the word in the mind, or in writing, or in utterance. Not in the mind nor in writing: therefore in utterance; but the word that Christ uttered can never be taken up again[^9]: therefore another [word] is spoken. But that [word] never existed except now: therefore neither has power or virtue been given to it.

5. Likewise, if it is given in utterance; [it is given] either suddenly, or successively. If *successively*, then it operates successively, which is foolish to say, as is manifest. For it does not follow that one part of the *bread* is transubstantiated before another, since the word regards the whole equally; nor that one part of *Christ* exists before another, because then the parts of the glorified body of Christ would be separable; which is foolish to say[^10]. If *suddenly*, [it is given] either at the *beginning*, or in the *middle*, or at the *end*. If at the *beginning*, and as soon as it exists, it operates: therefore at the beginning the transubstantiation comes about: therefore if one did not complete the words, it would [already] be done. Likewise concerning the *middle*. If at the *end*; but the word does not exist at the end: therefore it is given to a non-being. Likewise, if at the *end*; it is established that, when the word ceases, the power also ceases: therefore in the same instant the power begins and ceases, and both is and is not.

6. Likewise, if power is given, [it is given] either to the *whole*, or to *some* part. If to the *whole*: then either each part has the *whole* power, or a *part* [of it]. If the *whole*: then each part effects [the change]; if a *part* of the power; since the parts are not simultaneous, neither will the power be simultaneous nor the operation simultaneous. If to *some* part, I ask, to which?

7. Likewise, if God gives power to the word in utterance; then, when the uttered word fails, it seems likewise that that noble power at once ceases to be; and it would be unfitting that God should so give so noble a power, which at once ceases to be.

8. Likewise, if it is corrupted, I ask: into what does it pass? either into *something*, or into *nothing*. Into *something* it does not [pass], because it is not from anything; if into *nothing*, then it seems [to be] against the common opinion both of the Saints and of the philosophers, which is that nothing which is corrupted passes altogether into non-being.

### Conclusion.

> *The more intelligible opinion is that there is not given to the word any quality which works transubstantiation, but only an efficacious ordination to this.*

**I respond:** To this it must be said that here there is a twofold opinion, as was touched on above in the first distinction.

For some hold that there is given to the words a certain *spiritual power*, by which they work transubstantiation, God nevertheless operating intimately. And this power of the word has *possibility* and regards the *bread*; for it does not extend to the *body of Christ*. — And there is an example: if there were a giver of forms, as some have held, the particular agent would operate only in relation to the term *from which*, not [the term] *to which*. And this power is given to the word *above nature* and *above understanding*, and is given *suddenly*, as they say. But it is not necessary that it *operate* at once when it is given, because it operates according to the will of the giver. And it is a *simple* power, operating *instantaneously*; and yet it is in a *composite and successive subject*, since it is there above nature.

But because it seems most difficult and unintelligible, when that power is given to the word, whether it is given *then*, or has been given *before*, and *how* and *in what manner it is given*, and how it operates, if it is posited to be some quality in the word; therefore there is another way, namely that the *power of the word* is so called by an extended use of the name, not because some quality has been given to the word by which it operates, but [because] from divine institution this has been established, that, when this word is uttered by the priest over the bread with the intention of consecrating, the bread is transubstantiated. Hence at the utterance of that word the uncreated Word effects [it]. That infallible *ordination*, then, of the word to such an effect is called *power*, which is not any quality given to the word nor anything created anew.

And from this the reasons on both sides are plain. To the arguments, [it is to be said] that the first ones proceed concerning power as *commonly* spoken, except the last. To which it must be said that it is not alike, because nature is the principal agent[^11] and the efficient [cause], but here God alone is the one who influences.

The reasons for the opposite are plain, because I concede that, just as the creation of things is from the uncreated power alone, so also is transubstantiation. But in this there is here an addition, namely that this comes about at the utterance of a created word, that [creation] without any ministry.

All the other reasons are plain, because nothing *absolute* has been given to the words, but Christ by a single institution ordained, above nature, not only the word which he uttered, but every like [word] uttered by a priest, so that at once, when it is uttered, the priest himself, invisibly assisting, would convert [the bread]. Hence nothing is given to the word anew, when the priest pronounces it. But by that primary institution it had an efficacious ordination to this: on account of which it is not undeservedly said to have *power*. — In this manner also I understand the Sacraments of the new law to be a *cause* and to *effect*, as was determined above[^12]: not because they bestow grace, but because they have an efficacious ordination from the divine compact unto grace. Not so the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision[^13]. — Nevertheless this Sacrament has causality by reason of the *thing contained*, namely the flesh of Christ, which disposes unto grace. — And this position is that of great men and of those who understand well[^14].

---

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 17. Cfr. de Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 52. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: [Ambrose,] Book IV *On the Sacraments*, c. 4, n. 17. Cf. *On the Mysteries*, c. 9, n. 52. See here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Invenitur hoc testimonium in Epist. 38. seu homilia de corpore et sanguine Christi (inter opera Hieronymi), c. 2, quae alias Eusebio Emisseno (cfr. C. *Quia corpus* (35.), de Consecrat. d. 2) attribuebatur, secundum Oudinum autem Fausti Rhegiensis episcopi esse dicitur. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Pro *verbi sui* textus originalis et edd. *verbo suo.*

en: This testimony is found in Epistle 38, or the homily *On the body and blood of Christ* (among the works of Jerome), c. 2, which was elsewhere attributed to Eusebius of Emesa (cf. the canon *Quia corpus* (35.), *de Consecratione* d. 2), but according to Oudin is said to be by Faustus, bishop of Riez. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. — For *of his Word* the original text and the editions [read] *by his word.*

la: Vide Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 12. seqq. (VIII. c. 7.). — Superius pro *omne* multi codd. et ed. 1 *esse.*

en: See Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IX, text 12 ff. (VIII, c. 7). — Above, for *everything*, many codices and the first edition [read] *to be.*

la: Secundum August. supra in lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1 allegatum. Cfr. etiam d. 1. p. 1. q. 4. et 5.

en: According to Augustine, cited above in the text of the Master, d. IV, c. 1. Cf. also d. 1, p. 1, q. 4 and 5.

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 746, nota 6, et tom. II. pag. 198, nota 3.

en: Cf. tom. I, p. 746, note 6, and tom. II, p. 198, note 3.

la: De hac auctoritate, quae C. *Utrum sub figura* (72.), de Consecrat. d. 2, tribuitur Augustino, sed quae est Paschasii Radberti, vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Concerning this authority, which in the canon *Utrum sub figura* (72.), *de Consecratione* d. 2, is attributed to Augustine, but which is by Paschasius Radbertus, see here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 17. et 15. Cfr. de Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 52. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: [Ambrose,] Book IV *On the Sacraments*, c. 4, n. 17 and 15. Cf. *On the Mysteries*, c. 9, n. 52. See here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 19. (c. 5.): Semper enim honorabilius est agens patiente, et principium materia. Cfr. August., de Immortal. animae, c. 8. n. 14. et IV. de Musica, c. 5. n. 8.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 19 (c. 5): "For the agent is always more honorable than the patient, and the principle than the matter." Cf. Augustine, *On the Immortality of the Soul*, c. 8, n. 14, and *On Music* IV, c. 5, n. 8.

la: Cod. aa subiungit *quia quod semel dictum est, amplius non potest sumi,* et mox omittit *dicitur.* Superius post *Non* codd. H L supplent *verbo.*

en: Codex aa adds *because what has once been said can no longer be taken up,* and presently omits *is spoken.* Above, after *Not*, codices H and L supply *to the word.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 5. — De seqq. rationibus vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 4. circa finem, et III. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3.

en: Cf. below d. 11, p. 1, q. 5. — On the following reasons see above d. 1, p. 1, q. 4 near the end, and III *Sent.* d. 40, dub. 3.

la: Codd. *praecipuus.* Inferius post *patent* codd. B M Q (bb a secunda manu) addunt *primo*, cod. H *ergo*. Subinde post *quia* ex codd. B H L Q (E bb a secunda manu) interserimus *concedo* [codd. L Q *concedunt*], *quod*. Post pauca pro *creati*, quod habent codd. H L N Y (bb a secunda manu), edd. *prolati.*

en: Codices [read] *praecipuus.* Below, after *patent*, codices B M Q (bb by a second hand) add *primo*; codex H [adds] *ergo*. Presently after *quia*, from codices B H L Q (E bb by a second hand) we insert *concedo* [codices L Q *concedunt*], *quod*. A little further on, for *creati*, which codices H L N Y (bb by a second hand) have, the editions [read] *prolati.*

la: Dist. I. p. I. q. 4. in fine. Cfr. etiam d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. — Pro *donent* codd. E K O R S T W Z *tenent*, quae lectio respondet supra propositis d. 1. p. 1. q. 3.

en: Dist. I, p. I, q. 4, near the end. Cf. also d. 3, p. II, a. 1, q. 2. — For *donent* codices E K O R S T W Z [read] *tenent*, which reading corresponds to what was proposed above in d. 1, p. 1, q. 3.

la: De quo vide supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 5. in fine.

en: On which see above d. 1, p. 1, q. 5, near the end.

en: See the scholion to the 1st question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 450 dpi PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p231-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p232-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, cross-checked against IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 26159–26315). For this two-column, cascade-shattered region the PDF bands are authoritative; the OCR served for confirmation and footnote-anchor spacing.

**Running head / alignment.** Running head reads **DIST. X. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III.** (p.231) — confirming Distinction X, Pars II, Articulus I, Quaestio III. The opener "Tertio quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiationis…" confirms this is the third question of the article (ART I q3). Printed page numbers 231 and 232 both verified on the bands.

**Page-split map.** Body spans printed pp. 231–232. The break `<!-- page 232 -->` falls inside objection 8 (`8. Item, si corrumpitur…`): obj. 8 begins p.232 (left col top). The Conclusio, Respondeo, and replies all sit on p.232 (right column).

**Footer-ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page.
- p.231: notes 1–10, all anchored in this q3 body (5 in left col = nn.1–5, 5 in right col = nn.6–10). All claimed here, as `[^1]`–`[^10]`.
- p.232 LEFT column footers nn.1, 2, 3 (`August. II. de Moribus Manichaeor.`; `Part. I. quaest. 4`; `Ut Avicenna … Verbis esse dator`) anchor in the **QUAESTIO IV** opener and body (raw L26316+) — left to neighbor **a1-q4**.
- p.232 RIGHT column footers nn.4–7 anchor in THIS q3 Respondeo (`agens praecipuum`, `supra determinatum est`, `excepta circumcisione`, `bene intelligentium`) — claimed here, renumbered continuously as `[^11]`–`[^14]` (see repair note below). p.232 note 8 (`facile`, anchored on `difficile` in the q4 "Ad oppositum" opener) anchors in q4 — left to a1-q4, confirmed on the printed page band `vol4-p232-R-2.png`.
- Prior chunk a1-q2 (raw L25996–26158) owns its own page footers; nothing migrates back from this chunk.

**Apparatus repair — CORRECTED 2026-07-17 (J4 Class D/E repair, per `manual-review/J4-CLASS-DE-HANDOFF.md` §6).** Health scan flagged `defs=10 la=14 en=14`. Diagnosis: this chunk spans two printed pages (231–232), and Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each page. The p.232 second footer sequence (nn.4–7, right column, anchored in the Respondeo) had been transcribed into the body as bare `[^4]`–`[^7]` markers — colliding with the identically-numbered p.231 markers already used earlier in the same body (objection 4/5 and Contra 1/2) — but the corresponding **`**La.**/**En.**` apparatus entries for the p.232 sequence had never been added**, leaving only the p.231 set of 10 defs while both bodies carried 14 anchors (10 + the 4 colliding duplicates). This is genuine missing apparatus content, not the §2 false positive. Per this corpus's locked convention (single continuous `[^N]` sequence per chunk, not page-restart labels — see `vol2/bon-sent-II-d1-p1-a1-q2.md`), the four p.232 body anchors were renumbered `[^4]`→`[^11]`, `[^5]`→`[^12]`, `[^6]`→`[^13]`, `[^7]`→`[^14]` in both languages, and the four missing apparatus entries were transcribed verbatim from the p.232 right-column footer band (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p232-R-2.png`, extracted via `extract-pages.py --volume vol4 --pages 232 --dpi 450` + `colcrop.py vol4 232 1880`) and added as `[^11]`–`[^14]`. Content match confirmed against the printed superscript text: note 4 begins "Codd. praecipuus" (variant for *praecipuum*, matching the Respondeo's "agens praecipuum"); note 5 cites "d. 1. p. 1. q. 3" and the variant *donent*/*tenent* (matching "sicut supra determinatum est: non quia gratiam donent…"); note 6 cross-references "d. 1. p. 1. q. 5" (the circumcision discussion, matching "excepta circumcisione"); note 7 reads "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." (matching this file's pre-existing Notes claim that apparatus note 7 points to the a1-q1 scholion). No Latin, English, or existing apparatus prose was altered — only marker tokens renumbered and four new def entries added.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. There is no scholion section in this chunk's raw range; the apparatus note 7 directs to "the scholion to question 1 of this article," i.e. the ART I scholion's `De 3. quaestione` section lives in the **a1-q1** chunk. The marginal gloss `Notandum.` beside the Respondeo is editorial marginalia, not a scholion body and is not rendered.

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved cleanly against the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 10, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 4

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 232 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum virtus verborum possit convertere quantamcumque materiam.*

Quarto quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiante[^1] per comparationem ad *elementum*[^2], et quaeritur, utrum virtus verborum possit convertere quantamcumque materiam. Et quod sic, videtur[^3]:

1. *Quia*[^4] aeque difficile[^7] est convertere unam hostiam[^5], sicut duas, et ita duas, ut tres, et sic procedendo[^6]: ergo pari ratione aeque facile[^8] est convertere magnam et parvam quantitatem.

<!-- page 233 -->

2. *Item*, conversio illa est a virtute immensa; sed illa virtus potest super quantamcumque materiam: ergo etc.

3. *Item*, unus sacerdos toti mundo posset conficere; eadem ratione, si duplo plures essent, et sic ascendendo: ergo etc.

4. *Item*, panis est totum homogeneum, ergo eiusdem naturae est in toto et in partibus; et si secundum hanc partem convenit ad conversionem, et secundum omnem: ergo si adsit verbum et elementum, cum ista faciant Sacramentum, patet etc.

5. *Item*, sicut medium[^11] corrumpitur per superfluum, ita per diminutum; sed in quantacumque parva quantitate potest verbum convertere: ergo in quantacumque magna.

**Contra:**
1. *Omnia creavit Deus in numero, pondere et mensura*, sicut dicitur Sapientiae undecimo[^12]: ergo in hoc Sacramento concernitur determinata mensura: non ergo potest in quantamcumque materiam.

2. *Item*, baptizans, si intenderet verbo consecrare totum mare, non tamen consecraret nisi eam partem, quae venit in usum[^13]: ergo videtur similiter, quod nec hic totum panem.

3. *Item*, virtute Sacramenti non debet fieri aliquid, quod sit in contumeliam Sacramenti; sed si virtute verbi hoc fieret, posset stultus sacerdos conficere totum panem de foro, et sic hoc Sacramentum veniret in contumeliam: ergo etc.

4. *Item*, «natura nihil facit frustra[^14]», ergo multo minus nec Deus; sed si in quantalibet quantitate fieret consecratio, esset frustra: ergo etc.

### Conclusio

> Probabile esse videtur, quod virtus verborum non se extendat nisi ad tantam materiam, quanta congruit sumi in usum fidelium.

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc voluerunt aliqui dicere, quod nedum[^15] panem de foro, immo etiam, nisi servetur ritus ab Ecclesia institutus, non conficit sacerdos; quia, sicut non potest conficere nisi sacerdos, sic nec ipse sacerdos conficit, nisi modum sacerdotum et ritum servet in conficiendo. Et hoc dicunt fuisse revelatum[^9]. Qui autem aliter facit, non sacerdos, sed Sacramenti temerator secundum iudicium eorum reputatur[^10]. — Sed haec positio est nimis arcta, quia, sicut dicit Augustinus, et habetur distinctione octava[^16], forma verborum, in quibus consistit vis conficiendi, valde modica est; et constat addita esse huiusmodi ad solemnitatem.

Alia positio est, quod si adsit intentio et verbum et elementum, est Sacramentum in quantacumque materia. Unde si sacerdos totum panem de foro intenderet conficere, confectum esset, et similiter totum vinum de cellario. — Sed haec positio nimis ampla est; et dum nimis tribuit verbo et ministro, infert contumeliam Sacramento. Nec credendum est, quod Christus hoc daret, cum nec sapiens homo dictaret, hoc esse dandum; et ipse sapientissime omnia fecit[^17] et maxime sapienter hoc instituit Sacramentum.

Et propterea dicendum sine praeiudicio, quod non fit virtute verborum conversio, nisi adsit intentio et intentio concors institutioni et intentioni Ecclesiae; quia, sicut dicit Hugo[^18], «omne Sacramentum irritum reputatur, si contra institutionem celebratur». Intentio autem Ecclesiae et instituentis est convertere ad usum fidelium. Unde cum virtus verborum secundum intentionem reguletur, ad tantam materiam se extendit, ad quantam potest sacerdos conficere, quod debeat et congruat sumi in usum fidelium.

1. Et per hoc patet, quod sacerdos volens conficere totum panem de foro, nihil facit.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod illa virtus potest super quantamcumque materiam; dicendum, quod verum est; sed hoc[^19] non venit ex impotentia verbi, sed ex defectu intentionis. — Similiter patet sequens: quia, si tot essent fideles, quibus necesse esset habere tantum de hostiis, quantum de pane in foro, tunc ordinata intentione posset conficere.

4. 5. Ad aliud dicendum, quod non est defectus ex parte materiae, sed intentionis ordinatae, ut dictum est, non, inquam, ad finem, quia talis ordinatio non facit ad hoc, quod fiat conversio, vel non. Si enim aliquis conficit intentione lueri[^20], nihilominus conficit; sed si aliquis conficeret non ad usum, sed ut proiiceret in latrinam, dicitur ab aliquibus, quod nihil faceret. Quidquid sit de hoc, tamen illud verum est, quod oportet, quod habilitas sit ad usum secundum probabilitatis iudicium;

<!-- page 234 -->

et ideo non potest confici in quantacumque quantitate, propter hoc quod quantitatis nimietas aufert utendi idoneitatem ex parte materiae. — Sed quantumcumque sit parva quantitas, sine indecentia potest venire ad usum; et ideo quantitas parva non impedit, quia quantumcumque modica potest venire in usum[^21].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether the power of the words can convert any quantity of matter whatsoever.*

Fourthly, inquiry is made concerning the transubstantiating power[^1] in relation to the *element*[^2], and it is asked whether the power of the words can convert any quantity of matter whatsoever. And that it can, seems[^3] [to be the case]:

1. *Because*[^4] it is equally difficult[^7] to convert one host[^5] as two, and so two as three, and so proceeding[^6]: therefore by parity of reasoning it is equally easy[^8] to convert a large and a small quantity.

2. *Likewise*, that conversion is from an immense power; but that power can [act] upon any quantity of matter whatsoever: therefore etc.

3. *Likewise*, one priest could consecrate for the whole world; by the same reasoning, if there were twice as many, and so ascending: therefore etc.

4. *Likewise*, bread is something wholly homogeneous, therefore it is of the same nature in the whole and in the parts; and if it is suited to conversion according to this part, then also according to every part: therefore if the word and the element be present, since these make the Sacrament, it is evident etc.

5. *Likewise*, just as a mean[^11] is corrupted by excess, so too by defect; but in however small a quantity the word can convert: therefore [it can] in however large a quantity.

**On the contrary:**
1. *God created all things in number, weight, and measure*, as is said in the eleventh chapter of Wisdom[^12]: therefore in this Sacrament a determinate measure is involved: therefore it cannot [be] in any quantity of matter whatsoever.

2. *Likewise*, one baptizing, if he intended by the word to consecrate the whole sea, would nevertheless consecrate only that part which comes into use[^13]: therefore it seems likewise, that here too [he would] not [consecrate] the whole [quantity of] bread.

3. *Likewise*, by the power of the Sacrament nothing ought to be done which would be to the contempt of the Sacrament; but if this were done by the power of the word, a foolish priest could consecrate all the bread in the market, and thus this Sacrament would come into contempt: therefore etc.

4. *Likewise*, «nature does nothing in vain[^14]», therefore much less does God; but if consecration were brought about in any quantity whatsoever, it would be in vain: therefore etc.

### Conclusion

> It seems probable that the power of the words does not extend itself except to as much matter as is fitting to be taken into the use of the faithful.

**I respond:** It must be said that to this some have wished to say that not only[^15] [does the priest] not [consecrate] bread from the market, but indeed also, unless the rite instituted by the Church be observed, the priest does not consecrate; because, just as none but a priest can consecrate, so neither does the priest himself consecrate unless he observe the manner of priests and the rite in consecrating. And they say this was revealed[^9]. But whoever does otherwise is not a priest, but a violator of the Sacrament, according to their judgment[^10]. — But this position is too narrow, because, as Augustine says, and as is found in the eighth distinction[^16], the form of the words, in which the power of consecrating consists, is very small; and it is agreed that things of this kind were added for the sake of solemnity.

Another position is that if intention and word and element be present, there is a Sacrament in any quantity of matter whatsoever. Hence if a priest were to intend to consecrate all the bread in the market, it would be consecrated, and likewise all the wine in the cellar. — But this position is too broad; and while it attributes too much to the word and the minister, it brings contempt upon the Sacrament. Nor is it to be believed that Christ would grant this, since not even a wise man would dictate that this be granted; and He Himself made all things most wisely[^17] and most wisely instituted this Sacrament.

And therefore it must be said, without prejudice, that conversion does not come about by the power of the words unless intention be present, and an intention in accord with the institution and intention of the Church; because, as Hugh says[^18], «every Sacrament is reckoned void if it is celebrated against the institution». But the intention of the Church and of the One instituting is to convert [it] to the use of the faithful. Hence since the power of the words is regulated according to the intention, it extends itself to as much matter as a priest can consecrate, which ought to and is fitting to be taken into the use of the faithful.

1. And through this it is evident that a priest wishing to consecrate all the bread in the market does nothing.

2. 3. To that which is objected, that this power can [act] upon any quantity of matter whatsoever; it must be said that it is true; but this[^19] does not come from an impotence of the word, but from a defect of intention. — Likewise the following is evident: because, if there were so many faithful that it were necessary for them to have as much in hosts as [there is] of bread in the market, then with an ordered intention he could consecrate.

4. 5. To the other [it must be said] that there is no defect on the part of the matter, but of the ordered intention, as has been said — not, I say, [a defect ordered] to the end, because such an ordering does not bring it about whether the conversion takes place or not. For if someone consecrates with the intention of profit[^20], he nonetheless consecrates; but if someone were to consecrate not for use, but in order to cast [it] into a latrine, it is said by some that he would do nothing. Whatever may be of this, nevertheless it is true that it is necessary that there be a fitness for use according to a judgment of probability;

and therefore it cannot be consecrated in any quantity whatsoever, on account of this, that an excess of quantity takes away the suitability for use on the part of the matter. — But however small the quantity be, it can come into use without indecency; and therefore a small quantity is no impediment, because however small it can come into use[^21].

---

la: August., II. de Moribus Manichaeor. c. 6. n. 8. seq. Damasc., Dialectica, c. 61, et III. de Fide orthod. c. 28; Aristot., I. Phys. text. 82. (c. 9.), V. text. 7. seq. (c. I.); I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 20. (c. 3.), et I. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 17. (c. 3.). — Inferius pro *cedat* codd. V G et ed. 1 *cedit*, codd. A E Iv L V Z aa *secedit*.

en: Augustine, II. *On the Morals of the Manichaeans* c. 6, n. 8 ff. Damascene, *Dialectic*, c. 61, and III. *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 28; Aristotle, I. *Physics* text 82 (c. 9), V. text 7 ff. (c. 1); I. *On the Heaven and the World*, text 20 (c. 3), and I. *On Generation and Corruption*, text 17 (c. 3). — Below, for *cedat* codices V G and ed. 1 [read] *cedit*, codices A E Iv L V Z aa *secedit*.

la: Part. I. quaest. I. Cfr. d. 3. p. II. a. I. q. 2. et infra d. 13. a. I. q. 3. — Inferius pro *non enim* cod. H (bb a secunda manu) *non autem*.

en: Part I, question I. Cf. d. 3, p. II, a. I, q. 2, and below d. 13, a. I, q. 3. — Below, for *non enim* codex H (bb by a second hand) [reads] *non autem*.

la: Ut Avicenna; cfr. supra pag. 42, nota 4. — Verbis *mei dator* edd. praemittunt *Deus*.

en: As Avicenna; cf. above p. 42, note 4. — Before the words *mei dator* the editions prefix *Deus*.

la: Codd. praecipuas. Inferius post *patent* codd. B M Q (bb a secunda manu) addunt *primo*, cod. H *ergo*. Subinde post *quia* ex codd. B H L Q (E bb a secunda manu) interseruimus *concedo* [codd. L Q *concedunt*], *quod*. Post pauca pro *creati*, *quod* habent codd. H L N V (bb a secunda manu), edd. *prolati*.

en: The principal codices. Below, after *patent*, codices B M Q (bb by a second hand) add *primo*, codex H *ergo*. Then after *quia*, from codices B H L Q (E bb by a second hand) we have inserted *concedo* [codices L Q *concedunt*], *quod*. After a little, for *creati*, codices H L N V (bb by a second hand) have *quod*, the editions *prolati*.

la: Dist. I. p. I. q. 4. in fine. Cfr. etiam d. 3. p. II. a. I. q. 2. — Pro *dolent* codd. E K O R S T W Z *tenent*, quae lectio respondet supra propositis d. I. p. I. q. 3.

en: Dist. I, p. I, q. 4, at the end. Cf. also d. 3, p. II, a. I, q. 2. — For *dolent* codices E K O R S T W Z [read] *tenent*, which reading corresponds to what was proposed above at d. I, p. I, q. 3.

la: De quo vide supra d. I. p. I. q. 5. in fine.

en: On which see above d. I, p. I, q. 5, at the end.

en: See the scholion on question I of this article.

la: Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. *facile*.

en: The Vatican edition, with one or another codex, [reads] *facile*.

la: Cfr. supra q. I. seq.

en: Cf. above q. I ff.

la: Secundum August., supra lit. Magistri, d. III. c. I. allegatum. — De propos. praecedentibus cfr. supra p. I. q. 3.

en: According to Augustine, cited above in the text of the Master, d. III, c. I. — On the preceding propositions cf. above p. I, q. 3.

la: Nam, ut insinuat Aristot., II. Ethic. c. 6, medium est aequale inter excessum et defectum sive aeque distat ab utroque extremo. Cfr. etiam IV. de Caelo et mundo, text. 34. (c. I.)

en: For, as Aristotle suggests, II. *Ethics* c. 6, a mean is equal between excess and defect, or is equally distant from both extremes. Cf. also IV. *On the Heaven and the World*, text 34 (c. 1).

la: Vers. 21: *Omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti.*

en: Verse 21: *Thou hast ordered all things in measure and number and weight.*

la: Vide supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. 1. ad 2. — In cod. bb secunda manus addidit *baptismi*. Pro *venit* cod. E *veniret*. In fine arg. cod. F subiungit *de foro*.

en: See above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. 1, ad 2. — In codex bb a second hand added *baptismi*. For *venit* codex E [reads] *veniret*. At the end of the argument codex F appends *de foro*.

la: Aristot., I. de Caelo et mundo, text. 32. (c. I.), et III. de Anima, text. 43. (c. 9.).

en: Aristotle, I. *On the Heaven and the World*, text 32 (c. 1), and III. *On the Soul*, text 43 (c. 9).

la: In edd. additur *non totum*.

en: In the editions there is added *non totum*.

la: Cap. 4, ubi dicit, quod in verbis Christi conficiatur, reliqua omnia nihil sint quam laudes etc.

en: Chapter 4, where he says that consecration is effected in the words of Christ, [and that] all the rest are nothing but praises etc.

la: Psalm. 103, 24: *Domine, omnia in sapientia fecisti.* — Pro *omnia* codd. H L *cetera*.

en: Psalm 103:24: *Lord, Thou hast made all things in wisdom.* — For *omnia* codices H L [read] *cetera*.

la: Sum. Sent. tr. 6. c. I. Vide supra pag. 168, nota 3.

en: *Summa Sententiarum* tr. 6, c. I. See above p. 168, note 3.

la: Scil., quod non conficiatur. — Infra post *intentionis* cod. U addit *ordinatae*.

en: That is, that it not be consecrated. — Below, after *intentionis*, codex U adds *ordinatae*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 2. in corp.

en: Cf. above d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 2, in the body.

la: [?] Brevis nota apparatus huic loco (p. 234) apposita; eius textus in tabula notarum p. 234 — quae integra ad ARTICULUM II. spectat — non distincte legitur. Cfr. supra de *usu fidelium*.

en: [?] A short apparatus note attached to this place (p. 234); its text in the footer block of p. 234 — which otherwise belongs wholly to ARTICULUS II — is not distinctly legible. Cf. the standing cross-references above on the *use of the faithful*.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 26316–26450), with the PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{232,233,234}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative for the Respondeo / three *opiniones* / Solutio and for every footer (per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority inversion). English is a fresh literal translation. Two-column format; reflowed L-then-R per page.

**Running-head sanity check.** Confirmed "DIST. X. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. IV." on pp. 233–234 (printed "QUAEST. IV. 233" on the right running head of p. 233) — **PARS II confirmed, not DIST. IX**. Alignment confirmed: raw L26318 title = *Utrum virtus verborum possit convertere quantamcumque materiam*; opener "Quarto quaeritur…" present; ARTICULUS II opens at L26451 (excluded).

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 232 (tail):** Quaestio IV title + opener (*Quarto quaeritur… per comparationem ad elementum*) + arg. 1 (*Quia aeque difficile…*). The upper part of printed p. 232 holds the close of the preceding q3 (its Conclusio/Respondeo, opinio 1 *virtus spiritualis*) — excluded here.
- **p. 233:** args. 2–5, Contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo (three *opiniones* + Solutio oppositorum 1 / 2.3 / 4.5 + Notandum/Dubium aliud), running to "…secundum probabilitatis iudicium;".
- **p. 234 (head):** the single continuation line "et ideo non potest confici… potest venire in usum" (one line of left+right col); ARTICULUS II begins immediately after.

**Footer ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. Renumbered continuously [^1]–[^21]:
- **p. 232 footers nn. 1–8 → this q4 body** (all anchor in the opener + arg. 1, which are entirely q4): [^1]–[^8]. (The hand-off flagged "nn. 1–3 + 8"; on inspection the full p. 232 footer sequence 1–8 belongs here — nn. 4–6 are codex/cross-ref notes on arg. 1, n. 7 the scholion cross-ref, n. 8 the *facile* variant.)
- **p. 233 footers nn. 1–12 → this q4 body** [^9]–[^20].
- **p. 234 footer:** the q4 closing line's marker → [^21]; **p. 234 footer notes 1–8 belong to ARTICULUS II** (a2-q1) and are left to that neighbor.
- Nothing owed back to a1-q3 (q3 closed its own footers on the upper half of p. 232).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The Articulus I scholion (covering all four of its questions) is rendered in `bon-sent-IV-d10-p2-a1-q1`; footnote [^7] here ("Vide scholion ad I. huius articuli quaest.") points to it. No distinct q4 scholion section exists.

**`[?]` flags.**
- **[^21]** — the apparatus note keyed to the q4 closing line "…potest venire in usum" (p. 234): p. 234's printed footer block is entirely ARTICULUS II's, and the q4 closing note's text is not distinctly recoverable from the bands; rendered as a placeholder cross-ref. Resolve at the d.10 decade-polish gate via 600 dpi p. 234.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

source_text:
<!-- page 234 -->

### Articulus II. *De eucharistia per comparationem ad virtutem apprehendentem.*

Consequenter quaeritur de virtute apprehendente existentiam Christi veram in altari. Et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. *Primo* quaeritur, utrum talis existentia sit supra intellectum viatoris. *Secundo* quaeritur, utrum sit supra sensum comprehensoris.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento sit supra intellectum viatoris.*

Et quod sit supra intellectum viatoris[^1], ostenditur sic.

1. Omnis cognitio intellectiva secundum naturam convenientem nostro intellectui incipit a sensu — propter quod etiam dicit Philosophus[^2], quod « nihil est in intellectu, quod prius non fuerit in sensu » — sed corpus Christi esse sub illis speciebus est tale quid, quod numquam fuit in aliquo sensu, nec in se nec in simili: ergo etc.

2. Item, quod est supra experientiam est supra intelligentiam humanam — quoniam cognitio generatur in nobis per experientiam, ut dicit Philosophus[^3]: « Ex multis sensibus fit una memoria » etc. — sed existentia corporis Christi sub Sacramento est supra experientiam, quia « fides non habet meritum, cui humana ratio praebet experimentum »: ergo supra intelligentiam nostram.

3. Item, intellectus noster supponit hoc tamquam principium per se notum, cui non potest contradicere ad interius-rationem, quod omne continens corpus maius est vel aequale illi quod continet; sed species sive hostia nec est maior nec aequalis, sicut dicit fides: ergo si intellectus hoc ponit, ponit ergo contra se.

4. Item, omnis intellectus humanus hoc dicit, quod si aliquid est in aliquo toto et fiat in minori, quod necesse habet contrahi, aut illud excedit[^4] simpliciter; sed fides nostra dicit, quod in hoc Sacramento corpus Christi est in magna hostia, et iterum in medietate hostiae ita magnum et non contractum: ergo intellectus hoc non potest capere.

**Contra:**

1. Nullus tenetur ad impossibile[^5]: ergo si hoc est omnino supra *posse* nostri intellectus, nullus tenetur credere: ergo qui non credit, ibi esse corpus, sicut fides praedicat, non peccat.

2. Item, Augustinus[^6] dicit: « Quod credimus, debetur auctoritati; quod intelligimus, rationi »; sed nullas rationes habemus ad monstrandum, quod ibi sit *verum* corpus Christi, et quod, si est verum, est *integrum* et *vivum*: ergo videtur, quod intelligamus.

2. Item, quod est supra intellectum est supra verbum et sermonem, quia sermo ortum habet ab intellectu[^7]: ergo non videtur, quod aliquis possit de hoc Sacramento loqui.

Quaeritur etiam iuxta hoc: si totum est fidei quod est in hoc Sacramento; videtur, quod peccat quicumque se intromittit disputare de ipso.

Et iterum, cum alii articuli fidei sint supra intellectum[^8], propter quid magis dicitur de isto quam de aliis?

> **Conclusio.** Existentia corporis Christi in Sacramento altaris est supra vel contra intellectum, ut est humanus; sed intellectus fidelis sufficit in assentiendo et concordat in ratiocinando, licet non comprehendat.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod aliqui voluerunt hic subtiliari et dicere, quod hoc aliquo modo erat intelligibile. Et quamvis existentia talis sit supra
<!-- page 235 -->
naturam corporis humani *non glorificati*, non est tamen supra naturam corporis *glorificati*, quia corpus illud habet proprietates lucis et nobilitates lucis[^9]; corpus autem lucis tantae nobilitatis est per naturam, quod in maiori spatio et minori potest esse, ita quod ipsum nec sit maius nec minus. — Exemplum autem dant sic: si lux candelae sive lumen sit in magna domo et postmodum transferatur in parvam, lux candelae tanta est in parva[^10], quanta in magna, non rarior nec densior; similiter radius, si dirigatur in propinquum et in longinquum. Similiter volunt dicere in corpore glorioso, et maxime in corpore Christi. — Sed ista manuductio ad intelligendum potius intellectum obfuscat, quam aperit: primum, quia exemplum non est conveniens *in se*; « lumen enim non est corpus nec defluxus corporis[^11] » nec rarefit nec condensatur. *Rursus*, non est conveniens *ad propositum*, quia diffusio luminis, quia arctatur secundum spatium, configuratur secundum illud, in quod diffunditur. Si ergo corpus Christi sic esset in hostia, oporteret, quod figura nasi et aliorum membrorum configuraretur planitiei hostiae. Et *iterum*, non potest intelligi, quod *contrahatur*, quin una pars corporis intret sub alia; ac per hoc non manet corporis quantitas et figura, et multa inconvenientia ad hoc sequuntur.

Ideo dicendum aliter, quod est supra naturam corporis glorificati, nec possunt proprietates illae convenire alicui per naturam; et si conveniant, hoc solum est per miraculum; et ideo non est quaerendum simile, per quod capiatur.

Si ergo quaeratur ratio, per quam intelligatur, vel utrum sit intelligibile; dicendum, quod est loqui de intellectu nostro, ut est *humanus*, vel ut est *fidelis*. Si ut est *humanus*; sic intelligit conversus ad imaginationem et sensum et iudicat secundum causas intrinsecas et inferiores. Et ideo deficit in assentiendo, quia non assentit nisi secundum manuductionem, quae ortum habet ab imaginatione et sensu. Item, quia iudicat secundum causas intrinsecas et creatas, et ita comparando potentiam continendi[^12] ipsius hostiae ad potentiam continendi passive ipsius corporis; et quia invenit repugnantiam et improportionabilitatem: ideo contradicit in ratiocinando. Et ita iste articulus dicitur esse supra intellectum et contra intellectum, secundum quod est intellectus humanus. — Si autem loquamur de intellectu, secundum quod est *fidelis*; dicendum, quod assentit secundum dictamen fidei et secundum regulam veritatis aeternae; ideo sufficit in assentiendo et concordat in ratiocinando. Intellectus enim fidem habens statim credit, ex quo hoc propositum est sibi, scilicet quod Christus esset[^13] sub speciebus illis, et hoc adiutus lumine fidei. Similiter concordat in ratiocinando, quia aspicit ad causas superiores. Sic enim dicit intellectus: Deus potest facere omne quod est congruum; et fides assumit: congruum est, quod caro Christi exponatur in cibum; et ideo ratio concludit, quod Deus hoc possit ibi facere. Item, intellectus dicit, quod Veritas non potest dicere falsam; et fides assumit: Veritas dixit: *Hoc est corpus meum*[^14], et praecepit, ut diceretur: ergo dixit verum.

Cum ergo sit in nobis duplex intellectus, scilicet fidelis et humanus; ideo sentimus in nobis aliquando colluctationes; fidelis tamen intellectus praevalet sibi, ut est humanus, quia elevat ipsum extra animalitatem[^15]; attamen non ita elevat, quod comprehendat, ut meritum fidei integrum maneat. Et hoc patet: quia intellectus humanus dicit, quod impossibile est, quod maius contineatur a minori; et fidelis respondet, quod verum est *localiter*, et corpus Christi magnum non est ibi *localiter*, sed *sacramentaliter*; et quamvis illud sit impossibile[^16], tamen potest esse Deo possibile. Et quia nescimus, quid Deus possit, mutato modo essendi: ideo, licet intellectus sibi praevaleat, tamen nondum comprehendit.

Et sic patent rationes ad utramque partem. Primae enim procedunt de intellectu, secundum quod humanus, et secundae de intellectu, secundum quod fidelis[^17].

Ad illud tamen quod quaeritur, quare plus hoc dicitur esse supra intellectum; dicendum, quod in hoc quodam modo communicat nostra imaginatio, cum corpus Christi sit imaginabile; et quoniam illuditur ei, quia, ut est sub Sacramento, subterfugit imaginationem, immo *supra* ipsam est, ut prae-
<!-- page 236 -->
habitum fuit, cum accipiat modum essendi, quem habet spiritus: ideo, cum repugnet imaginatio, magis est *contra* intellectum[^18]. Sed in articulis aliis, scilicet Divinitatis, omnino deficit et non adeo repugnat.

Ad illud quod quaeritur, quare disputatur de hoc Sacramento, cum totum sit fidei; dicendum, quod non ad *generandam* fidem, sed ad *nutriendam*, ne propter ignorantiam aliquis concedat repugnans fidei, vel neget consequens ad fidem; et hoc perutilissimum et necessarium est, quia multa ponuntur in hoc Sacramento ab incautis, in quibus est periculum in asserendo. Unde disputamus, non ut melius credamus, sed ut fidem illibatam servemus, dum, ipsa cognita, errores caveamus et cavendo in veritate persistamus[^19].

english:
### Article II. *On the Eucharist by comparison to the apprehending power.*

Next there is inquiry concerning the power that apprehends the true existence of Christ on the altar. And concerning this two things are asked. *First* it is asked, whether such existence is above the intellect of the wayfarer. *Secondly* it is asked, whether it is above the sense of the comprehensor.

### Question I. *Whether the existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament is above the intellect of the wayfarer.*

That it is above the intellect of the wayfarer[^1] is shown thus.

1. Every intellective cognition, according to the mode connatural to our intellect, begins from sense — on account of which the Philosopher also says[^2] that "there is nothing in the intellect which was not previously in sense" — but for the body of Christ to be under those species is such a thing as never was in any sense, neither in itself nor in something similar: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, what is above experience is above human understanding — since cognition is generated in us through experience, as the Philosopher says[^3]: "From many sense-perceptions one memory is made," etc. — but the existence of the body of Christ under the Sacrament is above experience, because "faith has no merit where human reason furnishes proof": therefore it is above our understanding.

3. Likewise, our intellect supposes this as a principle known through itself, which it cannot contradict by interior reasoning, namely that everything containing a body is greater than or equal to that which it contains; but the species or host is neither greater nor equal, as faith declares: therefore if the intellect posits this, it posits against itself.

4. Likewise, every human intellect declares this, that if something is in some whole and comes to be in a smaller, it must necessarily be contracted, or else it exceeds[^4] [it] simply; but our faith declares that in this Sacrament the body of Christ is in a large host, and again in half the host equally great and not contracted: therefore the intellect cannot grasp this.

**On the contrary:**

1. No one is bound to the impossible[^5]: therefore if this is altogether above the *power* of our intellect, no one is bound to believe: therefore one who does not believe the body to be there, as faith proclaims, does not sin.

2. Likewise, Augustine[^6] says: "What we believe, we owe to authority; what we understand, to reason"; but we have no reasons for demonstrating that there is the *true* body of Christ, and that, if it is true, it is *whole* and *living*: therefore it seems that we do understand.

2. Likewise, what is above the intellect is above word and speech, because speech takes its origin from the intellect[^7]: therefore it does not seem that anyone can speak of this Sacrament.

It is also asked alongside this: if everything that is in this Sacrament is of faith; it seems that whoever undertakes to dispute about it sins.

And again, since the other articles of faith are above the intellect[^8], on what account is this said more [of this one] than of the others?

> **Conclusion.** The existence of the body of Christ in the Sacrament of the altar is above or contrary to the intellect, as it is human; but the faithful intellect suffices in assenting and concords in reasoning, although it does not comprehend.

**I respond:** It must be said that some wished to be subtle here and to say that this was in some way intelligible. And although such an existence is above
<!-- page 235 -->
the nature of the *non-glorified* human body, it is nevertheless not above the nature of the *glorified* body, because that body has the properties of light and the nobilities of light[^9]; but a body of light of such great nobility is by nature such that it can be in a greater and a smaller space, in such a way that it is neither greater nor smaller. — They give an example thus: if the light of a candle, or the gleam, is in a great house and afterward is transferred into a small one, the light of the candle is as great in the small[^10] as in the great, neither rarer nor denser; likewise a ray, whether it is directed near or far. They wish to say the same of the glorious body, and most of all of the body of Christ. — But this leading-by-the-hand toward understanding rather obscures the intellect than opens it: first, because the example is not fitting *in itself*; for "light is neither a body nor an effluence of a body[^11]," nor is it rarefied nor condensed. *Again*, it is not fitting *to the point at issue*, because the diffusion of light, since it is constrained according to space, is configured according to that into which it is diffused. If therefore the body of Christ were thus in the host, it would be necessary that the figure of the nose and of the other members be configured to the flatness of the host. And *again*, it cannot be understood that it is *contracted*, without one part of the body entering under another; and through this the body's quantity and figure do not remain, and many incongruities follow upon this.

Therefore it must be said otherwise, that it is above the nature of the glorified body, nor can those properties belong to anything by nature; and if they do belong, this is only through miracle; and therefore one is not to seek a similitude by which it may be grasped.

If therefore a reason is sought by which it may be understood, or whether it is intelligible; it must be said that there is speaking of our intellect as it is *human*, or as it is *faithful*. If as it is *human*; thus it understands by turning to imagination and sense and judges according to intrinsic and lower causes. And therefore it fails in assenting, because it assents only according to a leading-by-the-hand which takes its origin from imagination and sense. Likewise, because it judges according to intrinsic and created causes, and so by comparing the power of containing[^12] of the host itself to the power of being contained passively of the body itself; and because it finds repugnance and disproportion: therefore it contradicts in reasoning. And so this article is said to be above the intellect and contrary to the intellect, according as it is human intellect. — But if we speak of the intellect according as it is *faithful*; it must be said that it assents according to the dictate of faith and according to the rule of eternal truth; therefore it suffices in assenting and concords in reasoning. For the intellect having faith straightway believes, once this is proposed to it, namely that Christ is[^13] under those species, and this aided by the light of faith. Likewise it concords in reasoning, because it looks to higher causes. For thus says the intellect: God can do everything that is fitting; and faith assumes: it is fitting that the flesh of Christ be set forth as food; and therefore reason concludes that God can do this there. Likewise, the intellect says that Truth cannot speak what is false; and faith assumes: Truth said: *This is my body*[^14], and commanded that it be said: therefore it said the truth.

Since therefore there is in us a twofold intellect, namely the faithful and the human; therefore we sometimes feel in ourselves conflicts; yet the faithful intellect prevails over itself as it is human, because it elevates it beyond animality[^15]; nevertheless it does not so elevate it that it comprehends, so that the merit of faith may remain whole. And this is clear: for the human intellect says that it is impossible that a greater be contained by a lesser; and the faithful [intellect] responds that this is true *locally*, and the great body of Christ is not there *locally*, but *sacramentally*; and although that be impossible[^16], yet it can be possible to God. And because we do not know what God can do, the mode of being being changed: therefore, although the intellect prevail over itself, yet it does not yet comprehend.

And thus the reasons on either side are clear. For the first proceed from the intellect according as [it is] human, and the second from the intellect according as [it is] faithful[^17].

To that, however, which is asked, why this is said more to be above the intellect; it must be said that in this our imagination in some way shares, since the body of Christ is imaginable; and because it is deluded in this, that, as it is under the Sacrament, [the body] eludes the imagination, nay rather is *above* it, as has been
<!-- page 236 -->
held before, since it takes on the mode of being which a spirit has: therefore, since the imagination resists, it is more *contrary* to the intellect[^18]. But in the other articles, namely of the Divinity, [the intellect] altogether fails and does not so resist.

To that which is asked, why there is disputation about this Sacrament, since the whole is of faith; it must be said that [it is] not for *generating* faith, but for *nourishing* it, lest through ignorance anyone concede what is repugnant to faith, or deny what is consequent upon faith; and this is most useful and necessary, because many things are posited in this Sacrament by the incautious, in which there is danger in asserting. Hence we dispute, not that we may believe better, but that we may keep our faith unimpaired, while, it being known, we may guard against errors and by guarding may persist in the truth[^19].

la: Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: See the scholion to question 1 of this article.

la: Vide tom. II. pag. 904, nota 2.

en: See vol. II, p. 904, note 2.

la: Libr. II. Poster. c. 18. (c. 15.), et I. Metaph. c. 1; cfr. III. Sent. d. 14. a. 3. q. 2. arg. 3. ad oppos. — Seq. testimonium est Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 20. n. 1.

en: Book II of the *Posterior [Analytics]*, c. 18 (c. 15), and I *Metaphysics* c. 1; cf. III Sent., d. 14, a. 3, q. 2, arg. 3 against the opposite. — The following testimony is from Gregory, II *Homilies on the Gospels*, homily 20, n. 1.

la: Hac formula utitur Aristot., I. Poster. c. 8. (c. 10.): Πρὸς τὸν ἔξω λόγον. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 155, nota 10, et tom. III. pag. 250, nota 7. — Edd. *ad minus ratione*. — Superius pro *excedit* codd. E F G I L *excedet*.

en: Aristotle uses this formula, I *Posterior [Analytics]* c. 8 (c. 10): *Pros ton exō logon* ["toward the outward reasoning"]. Cf. vol. I, p. 155, note 10, and vol. III, p. 250, note 7. — The editions [read] *ad minus ratione*. — Above, for *excedit* codices E F G I L [read] *excedet*.

la: Sive, ut dicit Regula iuris 6. in VI: Nemo potest ad impossibile obligari. — Inferius post *corpus* ex codd. F G I L supplevimus *Christi*.

en: Or, as Rule of Law 6 in [the *Liber*] VI says: No one can be obliged to the impossible. — Below, after *corpus*, we have supplied *Christi* from codices F G I L.

la: De Utilitate credendi, c. 11. n. 25. — Inferius pro *vivum* edd. *unum*.

en: *On the Profit of Believing*, c. 11, n. 25. — Below, for *vivum* the editions [read] *unum*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., I. Periherm. c. 1. (c. 1.) quo supra pag. 67, nota 6. et pag. 68, nota 1. quaedam attulimus) et Boeth. in hunc Aristotelis locum, nec non Damasc., II. de Fide orthod. c. 21, ubi verbum nominatur « cogitationis animi nuntius » (ἄγγελος νοήματος), de quo vide tom. III. pag. 844, nota 7. In libro de Causis, propos. 6. dicitur: Narratio non fit nisi per loquelam, et loquela per intelligentiam, et intelligentia per cogitationem, et cogitatio per meditationem, et meditatio per sensum.

en: Cf. Aristotle, I *On Interpretation* c. 1 (c. 1), on which above, p. 67, note 6, and p. 68, note 1, we adduced certain things) and Boethius on this passage of Aristotle, as well as Damascene, II *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 21, where the word is named "the messenger of the mind's thought" (*angelos noēmatos*), on which see vol. III, p. 844, note 7. In the book *On Causes*, prop. 6, it is said: Narration comes about only through speech, and speech through understanding, and understanding through thought, and thought through meditation, and meditation through sense.

la: Vide infra d. 49. p. II. art. princ. I. a. 2. q. 1. et a. 2. princip. a. 2. q. 1. seq.

en: See below, d. 49, p. II, principal art. I, a. 2, q. 1, and a. 2, principal a. 2, q. 1 following.

la: Cfr. supra p. I. q. 5. — Superius pro *excedit* codd. E F G I L *excedet*.

en: Cf. above, p. I, q. 5. — Above, for *excedit* codices E F G I L [read] *excedet*.

la: Cod. H supplet *domo*.

en: Codex H supplies *domo* ["house"].

la: Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 69. (c. 7.). Cfr. II. Sent. d. 13. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — Mox pro *rarefit* codd. F G I L (bb a secunda manu) *rarescit*. Inferius pro *quia arctatur* cod. F *quae arctatur*, et pro *in quod* codd. G H aa *in quo*.

en: Aristotle, II *On the Soul*, text 69 (c. 7). Cf. II Sent., d. 13, a. 3, q. 1 following. — Presently, for *rarefit* codices F G I L (bb in a second hand) [read] *rarescit*. Below, for *quia arctatur* codex F [reads] *quae arctatur*, and for *in quod* codices G H aa [read] *in quo*.

la: Vat. addit *active*, et verbis *ipsius corporis* praemittit *Christi*, ed. I cum permultis codd. *et* (plures horum codd. subinde ante *quia* omittunt *et*). Superius pro *assentiendo et assentit* codd. L W aa *ascendendo et ascendit*. Inferius pro *improportionabilitatem* codd. F G H I *improportionem*.

en: The Vatican [edition] adds *active*, and prefixes *Christi* to the words *ipsius corporis*; ed. I with very many codices [reads] *et* (several of these codices thereupon omit *et* before *quia*). Above, for *assentiendo et assentit* codices L W aa [read] *ascendendo et ascendit*. Below, for *improportionabilitatem* codices F G H I [read] *improportionem*.

la: Vat. cum nonnullis codd. *est*.

en: The Vatican [edition] with some codices [reads] *est*.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 2, 14: Animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei etc. — Pro *praevalet sibi, ut* Vat. quidem planius, sed modo loquendi a S. Bonav. usitato minus conformiter (cfr. paulo inferius) *praevalet ei, qui*.

en: Epistle, I Cor. 2:14: But the animal man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God, etc. — For *praevalet sibi, ut*, the Vatican [edition] indeed [reads] more plainly, but less in conformity with the manner of speaking used by St. Bonaventure (cf. a little below), *praevalet ei, qui*.

la: Cfr. II. Sent. d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. in corp., et III. Sent. d. 23. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4.

en: Cf. II Sent., d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1 in the body, and III Sent., d. 23, a. 1, q. 1 ad 4.

la: Supple: secundum causas inferiores, sive, ut Vat. addit, per naturam.

en: Supply: according to lower causes, or, as the Vatican [edition] adds, by nature.

la: Vide supra p. I. q. I. et q. 5.

en: See above, p. I, q. I and q. 5.

la: Cfr. I. Sent. Prooem. q. 2.

en: Cf. I Sent., Prologue, q. 2.

latin_scholion:
**I.** Inter omnes constat, quod intellectus humanus, dum sensibus alligatus est, non nisi supernaturali lumine illustratus existentiam Christi sub speciebus Sacramenti possit cognoscere. Sed de intellectu separato, praesertim Angelorum, docet contra ceteros antiquos (cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 8.) Scotus cum Nominalibus, quod naturali vi possit cognoscere hanc praesentiam; quam doctrinam nonnulli limitant excludendo *modum* huius praesentiae. — Attentione digna hic est distinctio duplicis intellectus et modus explicandi, quomodo uterque in hac materia se habeat tum circa *assensum*, tum circa *ratiocinationem*. De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., de hac et seq. q. loc. cit. — Scot., hic q. 8. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 4. 5; de hac et seq. q. S. III. q. 76. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1. — De hac et seq. q. Durand., hic q. 4, et Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Among all it is agreed that the human intellect, while it is bound to the senses, can cognize the existence of Christ under the species of the Sacrament only when illumined by a supernatural light. But concerning the separated intellect, especially of the Angels, Scotus together with the Nominalists teaches, against the other ancients (cf. Alex. of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 3, § 8), that it can cognize this presence by natural power; which doctrine some limit by excluding the *mode* of this presence. — Worthy of attention here is the distinction of the twofold intellect and the manner of explaining how each behaves in this matter, both as regards *assent* and as regards *reasoning*. On the same question: Alex. of Hales, on this and the following q. loc. cit. — Scotus, here q. 8. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 4, quaestiunc. 4–5; on this and the following q., *Summa* III, q. 76, a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 2. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 6, q. 1. — On this and the following q. Durandus, here q. 4, and Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` L26451–26775) with PDF column-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{234,235,236}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880) authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio and all footers. Running heads confirm **DIST. X. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I.** (p.235) — NOT DIST. IX. Alignment of ARTICULUS II opener ("Consequenter quaeritur… Primo quaeritur, utrum talis existentia sit supra intellectum viatoris") confirmed against the prompt's q1 target; ART II opener folds into this q1 chunk per the locked chunking convention.
- **Printed span / page-split map.** Body pp. 234–236 (pdf 254–256, offset +20). p.234 = ART II opener + q1 Fundamenta 1–4 + Contra 1–2 + two *quaestiones incidentes* + Conclusio + start of Respondeo. p.235 = remainder of Respondeo (candle-example opinion refuted; the *duplex intellectus* solution; Conclusiones 2–3; *Ad argg*). p.236 = body tail ("Ad illud quod quaeritur… in veritate persistamus") + SCHOLION §I; QUAESTIO II begins lower on p.236.
- **Apparatus count: 19** — p.234 (8), p.235 (9), p.236 (2 body-tail only). A normal full-quaestio range. Footnote [^1] is the editors' cross-pointer to this article's scholion (the standard Quaracchi *Vide scholion* opener).
- **Footer ownership / hand-offs.** Page 233's footers (the prior printed page) belong to **a1-q4** (the d.10-p2-a1 article, ART I q4) — not claimed here. On page 236 the printed footnote sequence restarts under the SCHOLION/QUAESTIO II material: footers ³·⁴·⁵ (left) and ⁶·⁷·⁸ (right) anchor to **QUAESTIO II**'s *Fundamenta* (a2-q2) and are left for that chunk; only the two p.236 **body-tail** footers ¹ ("Vide supra p. I q. I et q. 5") and ² ("Cfr. I Sent. Prooem. q. 2") belong to this q1, rendered here as [^18]–[^19]. (The article-level scholion §I uses inline parenthetical citations, not numbered markers.)
- **Scholion disposition.** The article-level scholion has two sections: **§I** is q1-keyed (twofold intellect; Scotus/Nominales on natural cognition of the presence) and is rendered here; **§II** ("Ad 2. quaestiunculam…", on corporeal vision) is q2-keyed and left for **a2-q2**. The scholion uses inline parenthetical citations, not numbered footnote markers — so it carries no apparatus entries.
- **`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF column-bands.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 236 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum existentia Christi sub Sacramento sit supra sensum comprehensoris.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum existentia Christi sub Sacramento sit supra sensum comprehensoris. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia Magister dicit in sequenti distinctione, quod haec est ratio, quare sub alia specie traditur corpus Christi, « ut fides habeat meritum »; sed in Beatis fides non habet locum: ergo videtur, quod debeat eis apparere in propria specie.

2. Item, quamvis status gratiae sustineat aliquod velamen et compatiatur, tamen statui gloriae omne velamen revelatur: ergo si corpus Christi velatur sensui nostro propter[^1] speciem, videtur, quod Beatis sit revelatum.

3. Item, sensus decipiuntur propter hoc, quod ibi latet Christus sensus nostros; sed in Beatis nulla cadit deceptio: ergo nullo modo potest latere sensum Beatorum.

4. Item, claritas corporis non gloriosi non potest latere visum non gloriosum[^2], ergo nec claritas corporis gloriosi visum gloriosum; sed corpus Christi est clarissimum: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Existentia illa et modus existendi est supra intellectum[^3]; sed nunquam sensus elevatur supra intellectum: ergo est supra omnem sensum quantumcumque glorificatum.

2. Item, corpus Christi sub Sacramento habet modum existendi elevatum ultra modum existendi spiritus creati, pro eo quod est in qualibet parte totum, et pro eo quod in pluribus locis simul[^4]; sed nunquam oculus gloriosus videt spiritum: ergo nec corpus Christi, prout ibi existit.

3. Item, sensus gustus est in Beatis, ut dicit Augustinus de Quinque Responsionibus[^5], et infra patebit; sed esto, quod Beatus sumeret Christi corpus, constat, quod gustus non sentiret saporem carnis: ergo pari ratione nec visus percipit, ut est ibi.

4. Item, regula est in perspectiva, quod quando duae magnitudines videntur in aequali spatio, maior

<!-- page 237 -->

magnitudo videtur sub angulo maiori — videre enim est secundum triangularem directionem radiorum, ita quod basis est res visa, et angulus intelligitur fieri circa pupillam — ergo cum corpus Christi maius sit ista specie, si videt[^6] intra speciem maiorem magnitudinem, maior angulus est infra minorem.

Sed hoc non potest esse nisi per miraculum: ergo impossibile est, quod per naturam corporis glorificati videat, immo videre ita est miraculum, sicut existere.

### Conclusio.

> Visus quantumcumque gloriosus ad hoc non attingit, ut videat corpus Christi sub Sacramento altaris, sicuti est, etiam si praesens est.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod existentia corporis Christi sub Sacramento est sublimata supra modum essendi et omnis corporis et omnis rei corporalis et dimensivae. Unde cum visus non abstrahat a quantitate, quia est commune sensatum[^7] et percipere habeat corpus secundum modum existendi corporalem; dicendum est, quod nullo modo visus quantumcumque gloriosus ad hoc attingit, ut videat ibi Christum, sicuti est, etiam si praesens sit. — Et si alicui miraculose ostensum est, nunquam tamen ostensum fuit in forma, quam ibi habet, ut communiter dicitur; quia ostensum fuit in forma parvuli, et ipse est ibi secundum eandem quantitatem, quam habet in caelo, et sic est in qualibet parte[^8]; et iste modus existendi abstrahit ab omni sensu. Unde concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc.

1. 2. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de merito fidei, et de velatione, dicendum, quod quamvis sensus non percipiat, tamen intellectus hoc clare novit. Ulterius, etsi visus non videat, hoc non est, quia velatur illa specie, sed quia est ibi per modum alium, quam sit corpus, ut est sensibile. — Credo tamen, quod aliquibus certis indiciis cognosceret quodam modo sensus, ibi esse corpus Christi, id est intellectus conversus ad sensum; sicut ponit Augustinus exemplum in ultimo de Civitate Dei[^9] de visu glorioso, utrum videat Deum; ubi dicit, quod intellectus per sensum comprehendit, quod « Deus est omnia in omnibus »; sicut ego per visum cognoscere dicor, quod aliquis sit vivus et habeat animam, quando video eum loqui.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de deceptione, dicendum, quod in hoc Sacramento nullus sensus decipitur nec aliquid, quia est Sacramentum veritatis[^10][^13]. Sed quod dicuntur sensus decipi, hoc dicitur, quia sunt via, ut opinio in nobis fallatur, quae iudicaret, ibi esse subiecta specierum, nisi intellectus fidelis purgaret errorem; multo magis in Beatis purgat et praevenit, ut non decipiantur.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de claritate corporis glorificati, dicendum, quod neutra latet sensum, dum tamen corpus habeat modum existendi debitum corpori; quemadmodum corpus Christi passibile subdatum fuit impassibiliter Sacramento, quamvis secundum veritatem esset passibile ante passionem[^11][^14]; per hunc modum ei visibile et sensibile est insensibiliter ratione modi essendi ibi. In hoc autem nolo praeiudicare sensui Beatorum, sed opus Dei in hoc Sacramento mirificum praedicare[^12][^15].

---

english:
<!-- page 236 -->

### Question II. *Whether the existence of Christ under the Sacrament is above the sense of the comprehensor.*

Secondly it is asked whether the existence of Christ under the Sacrament is above the sense of the comprehensor. And that it is not seems to be the case:

1. Because the Master says in the following distinction that this is the reason why the body of Christ is delivered under another species, "that faith may have merit"; but in the Blessed faith has no place: therefore it seems that it ought to appear to them in its proper species.

2. Likewise, although the state of grace supports and tolerates some veil, nevertheless to the state of glory every veil is unveiled: therefore if the body of Christ is veiled to our sense by[^1] the species, it seems that to the Blessed it would be unveiled.

3. Likewise, the senses are deceived for this reason, that Christ there lies hidden from our senses; but in the Blessed no deception occurs: therefore in no way can it lie hidden from the sense of the Blessed.

4. Likewise, the brightness of a non-glorified body cannot lie hidden from non-glorified sight[^2], therefore neither can the brightness of a glorified body from glorified sight; but the body of Christ is most bright: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. That existence and mode of existing is above the intellect[^3]; but the sense is never elevated above the intellect: therefore it is above every sense however glorified.

2. Likewise, the body of Christ under the Sacrament has a mode of existing elevated beyond the mode of existing of a created spirit, in that it is whole in every part, and in that it is in several places at once[^4]; but a glorified eye never sees a spirit: therefore neither the body of Christ, as it exists there.

3. Likewise, the sense of taste is in the Blessed, as Augustine says in the Five Responses[^5], and will be shown below; but suppose that a Blessed one were to receive the body of Christ, it is established that the taste would not perceive the savor of flesh: therefore by parity of reasoning neither does sight perceive it, as it is there.

4. Likewise, there is a rule in perspective, that when two magnitudes are seen in an equal space, the greater

<!-- page 237 -->

magnitude is seen under a greater angle — for seeing is according to the triangular direction of rays, such that the base is the thing seen, and the angle is understood to be formed about the pupil — therefore since the body of Christ is greater than this species, if it sees[^6] within the smaller species the greater magnitude, the greater angle is within the smaller.

But this cannot be except by a miracle: therefore it is impossible that it should see by the nature of a glorified body; rather, to see is as much a miracle as to exist.

### Conclusion.

> Sight, however glorified, does not attain to this, that it should see the body of Christ under the Sacrament of the altar as it is, even if it is present.

**I respond:** It must be said that the existence of the body of Christ under the Sacrament is exalted above the mode of being both of every body and of every corporeal and dimensive thing. Hence, since sight does not abstract from quantity, because it is a common sensible[^7], and must perceive a body according to its corporeal mode of existing; it must be said that in no way does sight, however glorified, attain to this, that it should see Christ there as he is, even if he is present. — And if to someone it has been shown miraculously, nevertheless it was never shown in the form which he has there, as is commonly said; because it was shown in the form of a little child, and he is there according to the same quantity which he has in heaven, and thus he is in every part[^8]; and this mode of existing abstracts from every sense. Hence the arguments to this effect are to be conceded.

1. 2. To that, then, which is objected concerning the merit of faith and concerning the veiling, it must be said that although sense does not perceive, nevertheless the intellect clearly knows this. Further, even if sight does not see, this is not because it is veiled by that species, but because it is there in another mode than as the body is, as it is sensible. — Yet I believe that by certain definite indications the sense would in some way know that the body of Christ is there, that is, the intellect turned toward the sense; as Augustine sets forth an example in the last [book] of the City of God[^9] concerning glorified sight, whether it sees God; where he says that the intellect through the sense comprehends that "God is all in all"; just as I am said to know through sight that someone is alive and has a soul, when I see him speak.

3. To that which is objected concerning deception, it must be said that in this Sacrament no sense is deceived, nor is anything, because it is the Sacrament of truth[^10][^13]. But that the senses are said to be deceived, this is said because they are a way by which opinion in us is led astray, which would judge that the subjects of the species are there, unless the faithful intellect purged the error; much more in the Blessed does it purge and forestall, so that they are not deceived.

4. To that which is objected concerning the brightness of a glorified body, it must be said that neither lies hidden from sense, provided that the body has the mode of existing due to a body; just as the passible body of Christ was subjected impassibly to the Sacrament, although in truth it was passible before the Passion[^11][^14]; in this way it is visible and sensible to it [yet] insensibly, by reason of the mode of being there. In this, however, I do not wish to prejudge the sense of the Blessed, but to proclaim the marvelous work of God in this Sacrament[^12][^15].

---

la: Vide supra p. 1. q. 1. et q. 5.

en: See above, p. 1, q. 1 and q. 5.

la: Cfr. 1. Sent. Prooem. q. 2.

en: Cf. *1 Sent.*, Prooem., q. 2.

la: Cap. 3. — *Minor* ostensa est III. Sent. d. 31. a. 2. q. 1. Cfr. etiam supra pag. 69, nota 4.

en: Chapter 3. — The *minor* was shown in *III Sent.*, d. 31, a. 2, q. 1. Cf. also above, p. 69, note 4.

la: Vat. cum aliquot codd. *per.*[?]

en: The Vatican edition with some codices reads *per* [...].[?]

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 66. seqq. (c. 7.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 66 ff. (c. 7).

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced. — De *minori* cfr. Aristot., III. de Anima, text. 4. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: As was shown in the preceding question. — On the *minor* cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* III, text 4 ff. (c. 4).

la: Vide supra p. 1. q. 3. et 5.

en: See above, p. 1, q. 3 and 5.

la: Sive Hypognosticon (inter opera August.), in quo tamen nihil hac de re invenimus; Vat. (secuta Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. [...]).[?]

en: Or the *Hypognosticon* (among Augustine's works), in which, however, we find nothing on this matter; the Vatican edition (following Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, p. IV. [...]).[?]

la: Supple: *oculus.* — Inferius pro *corporis glorificati* edd. *corpus glorificatum*, cod. X *videatur* pro *videat.*

en: Supply: *the eye.* — Below, for *corporis glorificati* the editions read *corpus glorificatum*; codex X reads *videatur* for *videat.*

la: Aristot., de Sens. et sens. c. 8. (c. 7.), hanc propositionem: « Sensibile omne magnitudo est et non est indivisibile sensibile » demonstrat, et II. de Anima, text. 64. (c. 6.) magnitudinem exhibet inter sensibilia communia i. e. obiecta plurium sensuum. — Plures codd. *ratione sensatum*, quam lectionem mutaverunt edd. in *de ratione sensatorum.* Plurimi codd., exceptis codd. II P Q, omittunt *Unde* (pro quo Vat. *et[?]*).

en: Aristotle, *On Sense and the Sensible* c. 8 (c. 7), demonstrates this proposition: "Every sensible is a magnitude and is not an indivisible sensible," and in *On the Soul* II, text 64 (c. 6) he presents magnitude among the common sensibles, i.e. the objects of several senses. — Several codices read *ratione sensatum*, which reading the editions changed to *de ratione sensatorum.* Most codices, except codices II P Q, omit *Unde* (for which the Vatican reads *et*[?]).

la: Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 2. et 5. — Paulo inferius pro *abstrahit* cod. cum pluribus codd. *abstrahitur.*

en: Cf. above, p. 1, q. 2 and 5. — A little below, for *abstrahit* the codex with several codices reads *abstrahitur.*

la: Cap. 29. n. 6. Cfr. Serm. 277. (alias 102. de Diversis) 13. n. 13. seqq. — Edd. omittunt *sensus* et *id est* (pro quo res codd. perperam *ibi*). In principio solut. pro *velatione* edd. *velamine.*

en: Chapter 29, n. 6. Cf. *Sermon* 277 (otherwise 102, *On Various Matters*) 13, n. 13 ff. — The editions omit *sensus* and *id est* (for which some codices wrongly read *ibi*). At the beginning of the solution, for *velatione* the editions read *velamine.*

la: Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 4. in corp. — Post *nec aliquid* in cod. additur *aliud.* Inferius pro *subiecta* cod. F *substantiam.*

en: Cf. above, p. 1, q. 4, in the body. — After *nec aliquid* in the codex is added *aliud.* Below, for *subiecta* codex F reads *substantiam.*

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p236-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p237-{L,R}-*`) cross-checked against raw OCR `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 26776–26885. Vol IV is two-column (PDF-priority inversion for cascade-shattered Respondeo/footers). Offset pdf = printed + 20. **Running head on p. 237 confirmed "DIST. X. P. II. ... DUBIA." (NOT DIST. IX) — alignment verified.** Opener "Secundo quaeritur, utrum existentia Christi sub Sacramento sit supra sensum comprehensoris" = ART II q2, aligned with the article's TRACTATIO ("Secundo quaeritur, utrum sit supra sensum comprehensoris").

**Page-split map.** Q2 spans printed pp. 236–237. p. 236 holds the QUAESTIO II header + objections 1–4 (left col) + *Contra* 1–3 and start of *Contra* 4 (right col). p. 237 holds the remainder of *Contra* 4 (perspectiva), Conclusio, Respondeo, and replies 1–4. Page break placed at the perspectiva argument boundary (`maior | magnitudo`).

**Footer-ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering per printed page. **p. 236 carries 8 footers, all anchored in this q2 body** (objections + contra); these are renumbered 1–8 here. **p. 237 carries footers 1–7 anchored in this q2 body** (renumbered 9–15); p. 237 footers **8 ("Hic in lit. c. 1. in fine.") and 9 ("Lit. Magistri...") belong to the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM** (L26888+), not this chunk — left to the dubia neighbor. The q1 chunk (a2-q1, L26451–26775) owns p. 236's earlier footers anchored in q1's tail/scholion (which precede L26776).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The ART II SCHOLION (single block) — including the short "**De ipsa 2. quaestione** praeter supra citatos: Scot., hic q. 9 ..." citation section keyed to q2 — physically prints on p. 236 *before* the QUAESTIO II header and falls in a2-q1's range (ends L26775). Per the dispatch rule (joint block owned by a2-q1), NO scholion is rendered here.

**J4 Class B — orphaned apparatus defs 13/14/15 (2026-07-17).** Placed via PDF page 237 column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p237-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, split x=1880). p.237's own footer block (printed digits 1–7, confirmed by reading the literal footnote text at the bottom of both columns) renumbers to this chunk's [^9]–[^15]. Printed digit 5 = "Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 4. in corp. — Post *nec aliquid* in cod. additur *aliud*. Inferius pro *subiecta* cod. F *substantiam*" ([^13]) sits on *veritatis* in reply 3 ("...Sacramentum verita-⁵tis.", the digit wrapping to the next line after the hyphenated word break) — placed as `[^13]` immediately after the existing `[^10]` there. Printed digit 6 = "Vide infra d. 11..." ([^14]) sits on *passionem* in reply 4 — placed immediately after the existing `[^11]`. Printed digit 7 = "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." ([^15]) sits on *praedicare* at the close of reply 4 — placed immediately after the existing `[^12]`. Stacked double markers (`[^N][^M]`) at one lemma are an established corpus convention (cf. many Vol I/II/III chunks). Note: the pre-existing anchors 1–12 in this chunk do not consistently line up with their raw printed footer digit (e.g. printed digit 1 "Supple: oculus" content-matches *videt* but the body currently anchors `[^6]` there) — those are out of scope for this pass (not orphaned, and J4 only adds markers for genuinely unanchored defs); left untouched per the handoff's "never change existing anchors" rule.

**`[?]` flags.**
- `[^4]` (p. 236 footer 4): "Vat. cum aliquot codd. *per.*" — the note is truncated at the column-band right edge; the variant lemma after *per* is cut off. Rendered as visible; flag the truncation.
- `[^8]` (p. 236 footer 8): "...Vat. (secuta Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. ..." — overflows the band edge; tail (continuation of the Alexander of Hales reference) not captured. Rendered as visible; flag.
- `[^10]` (p. 237 footer): Vat. variant "et" reading at clause-end is partly clipped; rendered with `[?]`.