title: Dist. 12, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt:
Divisio textus
Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 288 -->

## Commentarius in Distinctionem XII
### Pars II.

*De frequentatione eucharistiae.*

**Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos etc.**

> TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 268.

### Divisio textus.

Supra egit Magister de fractione, hic agit de frequentatione. Et quoniam hoc Sacramentum frequentari contingit et a sacerdote conficiente et a populo, et utraque frequentatio respicit suum finem — nam sacerdotalis praecipue respicit significationem, sed populi frequentatio respicit sanationem — ideo pars haec duas habet partes. In prima determinat, quare sacerdos frequenter conficit. In secunda determinat, quare fideles frequenter recipiunt, ibi: *Institutum autem est hoc Sacramentum* etc.

<!-- page 289 -->

Prima pars habet duas. In prima movet quaestionem. In secunda determinat, ibi: *Ad hoc breviter dici potest.*

Similiter secunda pars duas habet. Primo determinat huius Sacramenti efficaciam. Secundo vero movet quaestionem de frequentia, ibi: *Si autem quaeritur, utrum quotidie communicandum.*

### Tractatio quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat hic Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de huius Sacramenti efficacia.

Secundo quaeritur de frequentatione.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto.

Secundo, utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, existenti scilicet in mortali peccato.

Tertio quaeritur de ipsa efficacia in se.

### Articulus I.
*De efficacia huius Sacramenti.*

---

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

*On the frequentation of the Eucharist.*

**After these things it is asked, if what the priest performs, etc.**

> FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 268.

### Division of the text.

Above the Master treated of the breaking [of the bread]; here he treats of the frequentation. And because this Sacrament happens to be frequented both by the priest who confects and by the people, and each frequentation regards its own end — for the priestly frequentation chiefly regards the signification, but the people's frequentation regards the healing — therefore this part has two parts. In the first he determines why the priest frequently confects. In the second he determines why the faithful frequently receive, there: *Now this Sacrament was instituted* etc.

The first part has two. In the first he raises a question. In the second he determines, there: *To this it can be briefly said.*

Likewise the second part has two. First he determines the efficacy of this Sacrament. Second he raises a question about frequency, there: *But if it is asked whether one must communicate daily.*

### Treatment of the questions.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master here determines, two things are principally inquired.

First it is asked about the efficacy of this Sacrament.

Second it is asked about frequentation.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether this Sacrament has efficacy in every just man.

Second, whether it has efficacy in any sinner, namely one existing in mortal sin.

Third it is asked about the efficacy in itself.

### Article I.
*On the efficacy of this Sacrament.*

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 33016–33091; two-column PDF bands for printed pp. 288–289 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p288-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p289-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`) authoritative where the OCR cascade-fragmented the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO into diagonal one-token-per-line bleed. Running heads confirmed **DIST. XII. P. II.** (p. 288) and **DIST. XII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.** (p. 289); printed "288"/"289" page numbers verified in the band tops; offset pdf = printed + 20.
- **The divisio spills onto p. 289.** The COMMENTARIUS header, Pars II rubric, Master lemma (*Post haec quaeritur, si quod gerit sacerdos etc.*), and the opening sentences of DIVISIO TEXTUS sit at the foot of p. 288 (whose body above is the prior Pars I *Dub. V* — the *indignus qui aliter celebrat mysterium* / Innocent III *viginti quinque crucis signationes* material). The `<!-- page 289 -->` break falls mid-divisio, immediately before "Prima pars habet duas." The remainder of DIVISIO TEXTUS, the full TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, and the ARTICULUS I header + subtitle occupy the top of p. 289. QUAESTIO I (*Utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto*) begins on p. 289 and opens the next chunk (`d12-p2-a1-q1`).
- **Pars II structure confirmed (TRACTATIO):** "duo principaliter quaeruntur" → **TWO articles.** (1) *De efficacia huius Sacramenti* = **ARTICULUS I**, with **three** questions ("Circa primum quaeruntur tria"): q1 *utrum hoc Sacramentum habeat efficaciam in quolibet viro iusto*; q2 *utrum habeat efficaciam in aliquo peccatore, existenti scilicet in mortali peccato*; q3 *de ipsa efficacia in se*. (2) *De frequentatione* = **ARTICULUS II**, which (per the divisio's "Similiter secunda pars duas habet… Secundo vero movet quaestionem de frequentia") likewise carries **three** questions on daily communication. ✓ Both articles = 3 q each.
- **Footer ownership (p. 288):** the seven footer notes on printed p. 288 are all anchored in the preceding **Pars I Dub. V** body (note 1 *Cfr. supra d. 10 p. I q. 5; Alex. Hal.…; B. Albert., hic d. 13 a. 13*; note 2 *Vid. supra lit. Magistri d. III c. 1 — Mox pro mutaret formam…*; note 3 *Cfr. supra lit. Magistri d. VIII c. 4*; note 4 *Libr. V de Sacro Altaris mysterio c. 14…*; note 5 *Marc. 15, 13 seq.; Luc. 23, 21 seq.…*; note 6 *Vide III Sent. d. 15 dub. 4 et d. 16 a. 2 q. 3*; note 7 *Innocent. III, loc. cit., praedicta recolligens ait: Quae…*) — i.e. the *crucis signationes* / Innocent III *viginti quinque* apparatus. **This Pars II divisio owns no footer:** the Master's lemma *Post haec quaeritur…* carries no superscript marker, and DIVISIO TEXTUS + TRACTATIO have no footnote anchors. `has_apparatus: false`.
- **Footers left to `d12-p2-a1-q1`:** the p. 289 footer block (notes 1 *Augustinus*, 2 *Damascenus*, 3 *Probet autem se ipsum homo* = 1 Cor. 11:28, plus the *quadratus / cubicus* textual note continuing the Dub. V numeral discussion) is anchored in the QUAESTIO I body and belongs to `d12-p2-a1-q1`.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF bands. *VIDE SUPRA PAG. 268* digits confirmed against the p. 288-R band; OCR "TEXTUJI" / "geril" / "frequentaticne" garbles silently corrected from the bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 270 -->

### Tractatio Quaestionum.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis tria principaliter quaeruntur.

*Primo* de existentia specierum sive accidentium sine subiecto.

*Secundo* de actione ipsorum, sive transmutatione.

*Tertio* de fractione.

### Articulus I. *De existentia accidentium sine subiecto.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum accidentia possint esse sine subiecto.*

Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod accidentia sit possibile esse sine subiecto.

1. Basilius in Hexaëmeron[^1]: «*Cum enim Deus possit plus facere, quam intellectus intelligere*»; et intellectus intelligat accidens praeter subiectum: ergo Deus potest hoc facere, quod accidens sit sine subiecto.

**Contra:** 1. Per miraculum non potest separari definitum a definitione, vel a partibus definitionis, unde non potest fieri, quod aliquid sit homo et non sit animal rationale et mortale; sed accidens habet definiri per subiectum[^2]: ergo non potest per miraculum esse sine subiecto.

2. Item, accidens habet definiri per comparationem ad subiectum et in comparatione ad suam *operationem*[^3] — et constat, quod prior est comparatio accidentis ad subiectum quam ad operationem, quia ab illo recipit esse — sed non potest aliquod accidens separari a definitione in comparatione ad *actum* per miraculum; unde non potest fieri, quod sit albedo et quod non sit color disgregativus visus: ergo nec a definitione per *subiectum* potest separari per miraculum.

3. Item, sicut se habet *esse* ad ens, ita *inesse* ad inhaerens, quia accidentis *esse* est *inesse*[^4]; sed *esse* non potest separari ab ente, ut sit ens et non sit: ergo nec *inesse* ab inhaerente: ergo cum accidens sit inhaerens, impossibile est, quod *sit* et non *insit*.

4. Item, facere, quod aliquid *non participans* rationem alicuius fiat *participans*, est hoc transmutare in illud; sed ratio substantiae est ens per se[^5]: si ergo accidentia per miraculum fiant entia per se, hoc est facere, quod sint substantiae: ergo species illae fiunt substantiae: cum ergo sint accidentia — illud constat — simul ergo sunt substantiae et accidentia, quod nequaquam potest capere intellectus.

5. Item, eadem est oppositio distantium specierum, quae est differentiarum[^6], sicut patet: quia quae est oppositio hominis ad asinum, eadem est rationalis ad irrationale; rursus, sicut opponitur asinus homini, sic opponitur rationali; unde sicut non potest fieri, quod idem sit homo et asinus, ita nec, quod sit asinus et sit rationalis: ergo a simili, immo multo fortius, non potest fieri, quod idem sit *accidens* et *ens per se*, sicut nec, quod idem sit substantia et accidens.

> **Conclusio.** Per miraculum fieri potest, quod accidentia sint sine subiecto.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod per miraculum potest fieri, quod accidentia sint sine subiecto sive substantia. Cum enim differant *per essentiam*[^7], potest Deus sine omni inconvenientia per virtutem suam illa separare.

<!-- page 271 -->

Ad rationes ad oppositum respondent quidam, quod *esse per se* et *esse in alio* dicunt rationem substantiae et accidentis quoad modos consequentes qui sunt inseparabiles secundum potentiam naturalem — ideo per huiusmodi habent notificari, possunt[^1b] tamen per potentiam supra naturam auferri. Et sic respondent ad obiecta, quia oppositiones currunt quoad rationes dicentes essentiam. Similiter de oppositione quoad differentias essentiales.

Potest tamen dici aliter, quod accidens et est accidens, et iterum est accidens secundum *species* sive differentias *speciales*. Nam in quantum comparatur ad subiectum, habet dici *accidens*[^2b]; in quantum ad operationem, habet dici *hoc*. — Notandum igitur, quod sicut comparatio accidentis ad operationem est dupliciter, scilicet secundum *actum* et secundum *aptitudinem*; ita etiam ad subiectum. Comparatio vero accidentis ad propriam *operationem* secundum *aptitudinem est essentialis et inseparabilis*; unde non potest esse, quod sit albedo et non sit disgregativa[^3b]. Comparatio secundum *actum* consequitur essentiam; unde posset accidens separari ab actuali operatione, unde albedo non semper disgregat. — Sic dicendum, quod comparatio accidentis ad subiectum secundum *aptitudinem* est essentialis; et haec nunquam privatur ab accidente nec ab illis speciebus; verum est enim dicere, quod sunt natae esse in subiecto. Comparatio vero actualis, quamvis semper insit actu secundum naturam, tamen sequitur essentiam, et ideo ab isto[^4b] potest separari sine aliquo inconvenienti potentia supra naturam. His visis, patet responsio ad obiecta.

1. 2. Quod enim obiicit, quod definitum non potest separari a definitione; dicendum, quod nomina in definitione posita, similiter et verba dicunt[^5b] aptitudinem, non semper actum; et ideo dico, quod accidens, quamvis non sit in subiecto, non tamen separatur a sua definitione, immo ei convenit, quia aptum est esse in subiecto. — Patet etiam responsio ad sequens de operatione, quia illa definitio, si intelligatur secundum actum, est separabilis; si secundum aptitudinem, neutra est separabilis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de *esse*, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia *esse* dicit actum entis absolute, sed *inesse* actum accidentis in comparatione ad rem alterius generis[^6b]; et quia res alterius generis diversa est, potest circumscribi intellectus eius a re illa sive separari; non sic *esse* ab ente.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de substantia, dicendum, quod accidentia illa nunquam participant rationem substantiae; nam *substantia* dicitur res per se existens, ita quod nata est per se existere et nullo modo in alio; hoc autem nullo modo convenit illis accidentibus, immo nata sunt esse in alio.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de oppositione, dicendum, quod differentiae debent dicere aptitudinem, sicut et definitiones. Si igitur accipiantur secundum aptitudinem naturalem ens per se, id est, quod natum est esse per se, similiter ens in alio, id est, quod natum est esse in alio; sicut accidens nunquam participat nomen substantiae, ita nec differentiam dicto modo. Dicitur autem accidens *ens per se* quantum ad actum[^7b]; et sic non dicit differentiam essentialem, sed modum consequentem essentiam; et in talibus differentiis non tenet obiectio.

english:
### Treatment of the Questions.

For the understanding of this part, three things are principally asked.

*First*, concerning the existence of the species or accidents without a subject.

*Second*, concerning their action, or transmutation.

*Third*, concerning [their] breaking.

### Article I. *On the existence of the accidents without a subject.*
### Question I. *Whether the accidents can exist without a subject.*

Concerning the first [point], one proceeds thus, and it is shown that it is possible for the accidents to be without a subject.

1. Basil in the *Hexaëmeron*[^1]: «*For since God can do more than the intellect can understand*»; and [since] the intellect understands an accident apart from a subject: therefore God can bring it about that an accident be without a subject.

**On the contrary:** 1. By a miracle the defined cannot be separated from its definition, or from the parts of the definition, whence it cannot come about that something be a man and not be a rational and mortal animal; but an accident is defined by a subject[^2]: therefore it cannot by a miracle be without a subject.

2. Likewise, an accident is defined by relation to a subject and in relation to its *operation*[^3] — and it is established that the relation of the accident to the subject is prior to [its relation] to operation, since it receives [its] being from the former — but no accident can be separated from [its] definition in relation to its *act* by a miracle; whence it cannot come about that there be whiteness and that it not be a color dispersive of sight: therefore neither can it be separated from [its] definition by [removal of the] *subject* through a miracle.

3. Likewise, as *to-be* stands to a being, so *to-be-in* stands to that which inheres, because the *being* of an accident is *to-be-in*[^4]; but *to-be* cannot be separated from a being, so that it be a being and not be: therefore neither [can] *to-be-in* [be separated] from that which inheres: therefore, since an accident is something inhering, it is impossible that it *be* and not *be-in*.

4. Likewise, to bring it about that something *not participating* in the account of a thing should become *participating* [in it], is to transmute it into that [thing]; but the account of substance is being-through-itself[^5]: if therefore the accidents by a miracle become beings-through-themselves, this is to bring it about that they be substances: therefore those species become substances: since therefore they are accidents — that is established — therefore they are at the same time substances and accidents, which the intellect can in no way grasp.

5. Likewise, the opposition of species distant [from one another] is the same as that of differences[^6], as is clear: because the opposition which is of man to ass is the same as [that] of the rational to the irrational; again, just as the ass is opposed to man, so is it opposed to the rational; whence, just as it cannot come about that the same thing be a man and an ass, so neither that it be an ass and be rational: therefore by a similar [reasoning], nay much more strongly, it cannot come about that the same thing be an *accident* and a *being-through-itself*, just as neither that the same thing be a substance and an accident.

> **Conclusion.** It can come about by a miracle that the accidents be without a subject.

**I respond:** It must be said that by a miracle it can come about that the accidents be without a subject or substance. For since they differ *by essence*[^7], God can without any incongruity by his power separate them.

<!-- page 271 -->

To the arguments to the contrary certain men respond that *being-through-itself* and *being-in-another* express the account of substance and of accident with respect to consequent modes which are inseparable according to natural power — therefore they are made known by such [modes], yet they can[^1b] be taken away by a power above nature. And so they respond to the objections, because the oppositions run with respect to the accounts expressing essence. Likewise concerning the opposition with respect to essential differences.

It can however be said otherwise, that the accident both is an accident, and again is an accident according to its *species* or *specific* differences. For insofar as it is related to the subject, it has to be called *accident*[^2b]; insofar as [it is related] to operation, it has to be called *this*. — It must be noted, therefore, that just as the relation of the accident to operation is twofold, namely according to *act* and according to *aptitude*; so also [is its relation] to the subject. But the relation of the accident to its proper *operation* according to *aptitude is essential and inseparable*; whence it cannot be that there be whiteness and that it not be dispersive[^3b]. The relation according to *act* follows the essence; whence the accident could be separated from actual operation, whence whiteness does not always disperse. — Thus it must be said that the relation of the accident to the subject according to *aptitude* is essential; and this is never taken away from the accident nor from those species; for it is true to say that they are apt to be in a subject. But the actual relation, although it always inheres in act according to nature, nevertheless follows the essence, and therefore from this[^4b] it can be separated without any incongruity by a power above nature. These things seen, the response to the objections is clear.

1. 2. To that which objects that the defined cannot be separated from the definition; it must be said that the nouns placed in the definition, and likewise the verbs, express[^5b] aptitude, not always act; and therefore I say that the accident, although it is not in a subject, is nevertheless not separated from its definition, nay it belongs to it, because it is apt to be in a subject. — The response is also clear to the following [objection] concerning operation, because that definition, if it is understood according to act, is separable; if according to aptitude, neither is separable.

3. To that which is objected concerning *to-be*, it must be said that it is not similar: because *to-be* expresses the act of a being absolutely, but *to-be-in* [expresses] the act of an accident in relation to a thing of another genus[^6b]; and because a thing of another genus is diverse, its understanding can be circumscribed from that thing, or separated; not so [can] *to-be* [be separated] from a being.

4. To that which is objected concerning substance, it must be said that those accidents never participate in the account of substance; for *substance* is called a thing existing through itself, in such a way that it is apt to exist through itself and in no way in another; but this in no way belongs to those accidents, nay they are apt to be in another.

5. To that which is objected concerning opposition, it must be said that the differences must express aptitude, as do the definitions. If therefore being-through-itself be taken according to natural aptitude — that is, that which is apt to be through itself — and likewise being-in-another — that is, that which is apt to be in another; just as the accident never participates in the name of substance, so neither [does it participate] in the difference in the said manner. But the accident is called *being-through-itself* with respect to act[^7b]; and so it does not express an essential difference, but a mode following the essence; and in such differences the objection does not hold.

la: De hac sententia vide tom. I. pag. 750, nota 7. — Inferius post *subiectum* cod. Z addit *secundum essentiam* scilicet.

en: On this opinion see tom. I, p. 750, note 7. — Below, after *subject*, codex Z adds *according to essence*, namely.

la: Ut docet Aristot. VII. Metaph. tex. 12. et 19. (VI. c. 4.). Ad hunc locum revocat etiam cod. M, qui, praemissis ex Porphyrio (de Praedicab. c. de Accidente) et Augustino (V. de Trin. c. 4. n. 5.) definitionibus accidentis, subiungit *et VII. Metaphysicae dicit Aristoteles, quod subiectum ingreditur definitionem accidentis.* — Pro *aliquid* cod. F *aliquis*.

en: As Aristotle teaches, *Metaphysics* VII, text 12 and 19 (VI, c. 4). To this passage codex M too recalls [it], which, having premised the definitions of accident from Porphyry (*On the Predicables*, c. On the Accident) and Augustine (*On the Trinity* V, c. 4, n. 5), subjoins *and in Metaphysics VII Aristotle says that the subject enters into the definition of the accident.* — For *something* codex F [reads] *someone*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 78, nota 5. — De albedine, in quantum est color disgregativus visus, vide tom. II. pag. 643, nota 9. — In fine arg. pro *per subiectum* cod. M (1 a secunda manu) *per comparationem ad subiectum*, cod. U *in comparatione ad subiectum*.

en: Cf. above p. 78, note 5. — On whiteness, insofar as it is a color dispersive of sight, see tom. II, p. 643, note 9. — At the end of the argument, for *by [the] subject* codex M (1 by a second hand) [reads] *by relation to the subject*, codex U *in relation to the subject*.

la: Vide supra pag. 20, nota 9. — Inferius post *et non sit* Vat. cum uno alteroque cod. addit *ens*.

en: See above p. 20, note 9. — Below, after *and not be* the Vatican [edition], with one or another codex, adds *a being*.

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 407, nota 1.

en: Cf. tom. I, p. 407, note 1.

la: Cod. G *diversarum differentiarum*.

en: Codex G [reads] *of diverse differences*.

la: Cfr. Aristot., III. Metaph. text. 17. (II. c. 5.), et VII. text. 8. (VI. c. 3.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* III, text 17 (II, c. 5), and VII, text 8 (VI, c. 3).

la: Fide codd. D E F G H (1 a secunda manu) L P Q aa, et contextu exigente, supplevimus verba *possunt tamen* usque ad *et sic respondent ad obiecta.*

en: On the trust of codices D E F G H (1 by a second hand) L P Q aa, and as the context required, we have supplied the words *they can however* down to *and so they respond to the objections.*

la: Simplicius (Comment. operum Aristot. saeculo 6. post Christum), l. de Anima, text. 5: *Accidens quasi cum alio cadens appellatur.* Cfr. Isidor., II. Etymolog. c. 26. n. 12. — Superius pro *et iterum est accidens* cod. F *et est hoc accidens.*

en: Simplicius (Commentator on the works of Aristotle in the 6th century after Christ), bk. *On the Soul*, text 5: *The accident is so called as it were [from] falling together with another (cum alio cadens).* Cf. Isidore, *Etymologies* II, c. 26, n. 12. — Above, for *and again is an accident* codex F [reads] *and is this accident.*

la: Cod. Z addit *habitu*, edd. supplent *visus*.

en: Codex Z adds *in habit (habitu)*, the editions supply *of sight.*

la: Scilicet accidente. — Pro *ab isto*, quod Vat. omittit, codd. B Y *ab ista*.

en: Namely, [from] the accident. — For *from this (ab isto)*, which the Vatican [edition] omits, codices B Y [read] *from this (ab ista)*.

la: In edd. additur *interdum*.

en: In the editions there is added *at times (interdum)*.

la: Scilicet substantiae.

en: Namely, of substance.

la: Nempe quantum ad actum existendi, quem, si separatur a substantia, per potentiam Dei obtinet.

en: Namely, with respect to the act of existing, which, if it is separated from substance, it obtains by the power of God. ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** Quoad quaestiones huius articuli notanda est propositio (2.) Ioannis Wikleff, a Concilio Constant. damnata: «*Accidentia panis non manent sine subiecto in eodem Sacramento*» (cfr. alia Ecclesiae decreta superius pluries citata, praecipue Sess. 13. Concilii Trident.). Nihilominus prodierunt ex schola Cartesii plures, qui, cum negarent, accidentia physica realiter a substantia esse distincta, posuerunt, species huius Sacramenti, de quibus loquitur Concil. Trident., non esse nisi intentionales sive quasdam similitudines et apparitiones accidentium; quae opinio recte a catholicis theologis iudicatur esse falsa in philosophia et prorsus reiicienda in theologia.

**II.** Communiter Scholastici distinguunt duplex specierum subiectum, scilicet alterum substantiale et remotum, quod est substantia, alterum accidentale et proximum, quod est *quantitas*, quae ipsa immediate inhaeret substantiae simulque proximum subiectum est aliorum accidentium. Hinc iidem docent, omnia accidentia in Sacramento esse sine subiecto substantiali, sed plura accidentia, ut qualitates, cum alias naturaliter insint substantiae mediante quantitate (cfr. infra a. 2. q. 3. in corp. et fundam. 5; Thom., S. III. q. 77. a. 2.), etiam in Sacramento de facto non esse sine subiecto suo proximo (quantitate), sicut ante consecrationem. Hoc tamen negant Nominales dicentes, quantitatem non distingui realiter a re quanta. — Sed si quaeratur de possibili, sunt multi, qui cum Richardo, Aegidio et Durando dicunt, non omnia accidentia posse esse sine subiecto, praesertim relativa, de quo diffuse agit Scot., hic q. 2. et q. 1. n. 8. seqq. — Controvertitur etiam inter scholam Scoti et S. Thomae, utrum accidentibus remanentibus divinitus detur modus quidam positivus et permanens, quo sint per se, ut videtur docere S. Thom. (S. III. q. 77. a. 1. ad 4, a. 2. ad 1. et hic q. 1. a. 2.), an, ut sint, tantum habeant dependentiam continuam a virtute Dei per modum efficientis et conservantis: quod fuse docet Scot. (hic q. 1.), cui favere videtur modus loquendi a S. Bonaventura passim usurpatus.

**III.** In 1. quaestione agitur de *possibilitate* conclusionis, in 2. q. de *congruentia*, in 3. q. de *facto*, quam distinctionem quaestionum, duce Alexandro Hal., etiam S. Thom. in Comment. adhibet. Alii vero una, vel duabus quaestionibus totam hanc rem absolvunt. Hinc locos auctorum, qui de tribus huius articuli quaestionibus agunt, hic simul referimus, scilicet: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. I. § 1. 2. 3. — Scot., hic q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. I. 2. 3; S. III. q. 77. a. I.; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 63. — B. Albert., hic a. 16. — Petr. Tar., hic q. 1. a. I. 2. — Richard. a Med. hic a. I. q. I. 2. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth. hic q. I.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** With respect to the questions of this article, there is to be noted the proposition (2.) of John Wycliffe, condemned by the Council of Constance: «*The accidents of the bread do not remain without a subject in the same Sacrament*» (cf. the other decrees of the Church cited several times above, especially Session 13 of the Council of Trent). Nevertheless there came forth from the school of Descartes many who, since they denied that physical accidents are really distinct from substance, held that the species of this Sacrament, of which the Council of Trent speaks, are nothing but intentional [species] or certain likenesses and appearances of accidents; which opinion is rightly judged by Catholic theologians to be false in philosophy and altogether to be rejected in theology.

**II.** Commonly the Scholastics distinguish a twofold subject of the species, namely the one substantial and remote, which is substance, the other accidental and proximate, which is *quantity*, which itself immediately inheres in substance and is at the same time the proximate subject of the other accidents. Hence the same [authors] teach that all the accidents in the Sacrament are without a substantial subject, but that several accidents, such as qualities — since they otherwise naturally inhere in substance by the mediation of quantity (cf. below a. 2, q. 3, in the body and fundamentum 5; Thomas, S. III, q. 77, a. 2) — are also in the Sacrament in fact not without their proximate subject (quantity), just as before the consecration. This however the Nominalists deny, saying that quantity is not really distinct from the quantified thing. — But if the question be raised concerning what is possible, there are many who, with Richard, Giles, and Durandus, say that not all accidents can be without a subject, especially the relative ones, of which Scotus treats at length, here q. 2 and q. 1, n. 8 ff. — It is also controverted between the school of Scotus and [that] of St. Thomas whether, the accidents remaining, there is divinely given a certain positive and permanent mode by which they are through themselves, as St. Thomas seems to teach (S. III, q. 77, a. 1, ad 4; a. 2, ad 1; and here q. 1, a. 2), or whether, in order to be, they have only a continual dependence on the power of God by way of efficient and conserving [cause]: which Scotus teaches at length (here q. 1), to favor whom the manner of speaking employed throughout by St. Bonaventure seems [to incline].

**III.** In the 1st question there is treated the *possibility* of the conclusion, in the 2nd q. the *congruity*, in the 3rd q. the *fact*, which distinction of the questions, following Alexander of Hales, St. Thomas too employs in his Commentary. But others settle the whole matter in one or two questions. Hence the passages of the authors who treat of the three questions of this article we here refer to together, namely: Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. I, § 1, 2, 3. — Scotus, here q. I. — St. Thomas, here q. I, a. I, little-questions I, 2, 3; S. III, q. 77, a. I; S. c. Gent. IV, c. 63. — Bl. Albert, here a. 16. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. I, 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I, 2. — Durandus, here q. I. — Denis the Carthusian, here q. I.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from 200 dpi PDF column bands (`raw/vision/vol4/p-{270,271,272}.png`; the default colcrop left band at split_x≈1880 truncated the right edge of the LEFT column, so I re-cropped the left column at x 0–2060 — bands `vol4-p27{0,1}-LW-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p272-LWtop.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 30555–30779) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/scholion/footer regions. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 270–272 = PDF 290–292). **Page-verify confirmed:** running head on p. 271 reads "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. I."

**Opener alignment confirmed.** The q1 body opens "Circa primum proceditur sic et ostenditur, quod accidentia sit possibile esse sine subiecto" — matching the TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM's first question ("Primo quaeritur, utrum sit possibile, quod accidens sit sine subiecto, etiam per miraculum"). This is the *possibility* question. The chunk ends just before QUAESTIO II ("Utrum in Sacramento eucharistiae congruat species esse sine subiecto", raw ~30782). The pars-level TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM and the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I openers were folded into this q1 (no standalone divisio chunk exists for d.12 p.1 a.1 in the skeleton set); if a separate `d12-p1-a1-divisio` chunk is later created, move the "### Tractatio Quaestionum" block there.

**Scholion finding — PRESENT, rendered IN FULL here.** A single article-level "SCHOLION." block sits in this q1's raw range, beginning on p. 271 left col. (after q1's solutio) and continuing onto p. 272 left col. (§III + the doctor-list). It has three numbered parts and **explicitly covers all three questions of Articulus I (q1, q2, q3)**: §I "Quoad quaestiones huius articuli…" (Wycliffe/Trent/Descartes on accidents without a subject); §II the Scholastic twofold-subject distinction (substantial/remote vs. quantity/proximate; Scotus-vs-Thomas controversy); §III the question-by-question division ("In 1. quaestione… de possibilitate, in 2. q. de congruentia, in 3. q. de facto") plus the consolidated doctor-list for the whole article. Per the brief, since it lives in this q1's range it is rendered here body-first, scholion-last. **Hand-off: sibling chunks `d12-p1-a1-q2` and `d12-p1-a1-q3` should carry only a cross-reference pointing back here** (the inverse of the d.11 a1-q1↔q2 shared-scholion pattern: there q2 held the scholion; here q1 holds it for q2/q3).

**Page-split / footer-ownership map (14 apparatus entries, all anchored in this q1).**
- p. 270 left col.: args 1–3 (Fundamenta) + Contra args 1–3 (Ad oppositum) + footers 1–3 (`^1` Basil, `^2` Aristot. Metaph., `^3` albedo/disgregativus).
- p. 270 right col.: TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I headers, args 4–5, CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO (begins) + footers 4–7 (`^4` *inesse*, `^5` ens per se, `^6` Cod. G *diversarum*, `^7` Aristot. III/VII Metaph.).
- p. 270 → 271 boundary falls inside the Respondeo ("…per virtutem suam illa separare." | "Ad rationes ad oppositum respondent quidam…"). Grammatically continuous.
- p. 271 left col.: Respondeo continuation (the two *aliter* solutions) + replies *Ad 1.2 / Ad 3 / Ad 4 / Ad 5* + SCHOLION §I–§II + footers 1–7 (`^1b`–`^7b`).
- p. 271 right col.: replies *Ad 3 / Ad 4 / Ad 5* (continued) + SCHOLION header.
- p. 272 left col.: SCHOLION §III + the small-type consolidated doctor-list (end of this q1's raw range, immediately before QUAESTIO II). No footer on p. 272 belongs to a sibling — the doctor-list is inline scholion text with no footnote markers.

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: arg 1 *Hexaëmeron* / *intelligere* (OCR fragmented); arg 5 *distantium specierum* (OCR `dislantiura`); Respondeo *per essentiam* (OCR `essentiain`); scholion §I *Wikleff* / *Cartesii* (OCR `WikIeIT`/`Cartesii`); §II *quantitas* / *Nominales* read from PDF. The right-column marginal rubrics (*Fundamenta.*, *Ad oppositum.*, *Conclusio*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *Explicatio aliorum / auctoris / notanda*, *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


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

source_text:
<!-- page 272 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum in Sacramento eucharistiae congruat species esse sine subiecto.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum congruat, quod in hoc Sacramento sint species sine subiecto. Et quod non sit inconveniens, immo conveniens, patet:

1. Quia, si esset ibi subiectum, nequaquam tanta esset dependentia specierum ad contentum, sicut est; et ita nunquam esset signum ita ductivum[^1].

**Contra:** 1. Minus inconveniens est, corpus non glorificatum simul esse cum glorificato, quam accidens esse praeter subiectum[^2]: si ergo corpus glorificatum esset simul cum pane, multo minus esset inconveniens, quam accidentia esse praeter subiectum, et magis credibile: ergo magis congruebat, accidentia manere in subiecto quam separari.

2. Item, accidentia illa ducunt ad intelligendum, quod ibi sit substantia panis, quia sunt propria accidentia panis et signa substantiae[^3]: ergo in hoc Sacramento, cum non sit substantia, est aliqua falsitas; sed non decet, in Sacramento veritatis esse falsitatem: ergo etc.

3. Item, opere miraculi non debet fieri praeiudicium naturae rei; sed cum res ponitur in loco, qui suae naturae non convenit, quamvis sit nobilior, tamen fit ei praeiudicium, ut si vermis poneretur in caelo[^4], vel pes in scapulis: ergo similiter, quando datur ei proprietas, quae naturae suae non convenit. Sed esse sine subiecto est proprietas nullo modo conveniens naturae accidentis: ergo non congruit, hoc per miraculum sibi dari.

4. Item, infirmior est intellectus ad credendum contrarium eius quod sentit, quam sensus ad recipiendum aliquod horribile[^5] sibi — nam sensus hoc potest sine gratia, sicut patet in eo qui comedit medicinam, sed intellectus non — sed non debet fieri aliquid in solatium minoris infirmitatis, quod fiat in praeiudicium maioris: si ergo velatio accidentium occultat intellectui quod ibi est, nullo modo debuerunt ibi accidentia remanere.

> **Conclusio.** Congruum est, in eucharistia accidentia remanere, et quidem sine subiecto.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod congruit, ibi accidentia remanere; quia sunt, ut dicit Hugo[^6], in solatium sensus et in fidei meritum. Dum enim velatur verum corpus carnis, et fides magis meretur credendo quod non videt, et sensus libentius recipit.

Congruum autem est, quod sola remaneant sine subiecto: propter *efficaciorem significationem*, quia efficacius et perfectius ducunt in significatum, cum non habeant ibi stabiliens per naturam. — Propter *convenientem cibationem*; quia enim iste cibus spiritualis est, ideo oportet, animam sublevari a carnalitate sensus per fidem et carnali delectatione per caritatem[^7]; et ideo non debuit ibi remanere panis materialis. — Propter *fidei promotionem*; dum enim sublevatur intellectus ad intelligendum quod est supra naturam, scilicet accidentia esse sine subiecto, fit habilior ad credendum quod est supra se ipsum, quod totus Christus sit in tam parva hostia[^8]. — Quarta ratio, propter *divinorum operum perfectionem*, quae debet in hoc Sacramento reperiri, cum sit perfectissimum. Et attenditur duplex perfectio in hoc Sacramento: prima est in hoc, quod accidentia accipiunt modum nobilissimum essendi, scilicet esse per se[^9]; et in hoc, quod substantia illa, quae suberat, cum esset materialis et corruptibilis, transsubstantiatur in substantiam sive in corpus spirituale et incorruptibile et in corpus Divinitati coniunctum et gloriosum.

<!-- page 273 -->

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod minus est inconveniens; dicendum, quod hoc non est inconveniens isti Sacramento, immo valde conveniens.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de falsitate, dicendum, quod non est consentiendum sensui, sed fidei; et ideo nihil omnino falsitatis est ibi, sed veritatis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non debet fieri praeiudicium naturae rei; dicendum, quod duplex est ordo rerum, unus scilicet universalis, alius particularis, qui debetur isti rei, vel illi. Dico igitur, quod per miraculum non debet fieri aliquid in praeiudicium ordinis universalis; quia, si pes esset in capite, esset in praeiudicium toti corpori; similiter nec quod sit in praeiudicium totius universi. Sed licet alicuius rei natura melioretur et statum recipiat maioris quam naturae suae competat nobilitatis, dummodo fiat ordinatio conveniens secundum ordinem universi convenienter fit; et sic in proposito, quia haec ordinantur ad hominis utilitatem. — Vel dicendum, quod competit naturae uniuscuiusque rei obedire Creatori, et illud est conveniens suae naturae, quod Creator iusserit, quod, si prius non sit conveniens, postea fit conveniens.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de infirmitate intellectus, dicendum, quod hoc verum esset, nisi aliud daretur medicamentum ipsi; et hoc est gratia fidei, qua fortificatur intellectus ad credendum sine dubio quod non videt.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether in the sacrament of the Eucharist it is fitting that the species exist without a subject.*

Secondly it is asked, whether it is fitting that in this Sacrament there be species without a subject. And that it is not unfitting, but rather fitting, is clear:

1. Because, if there were a subject there, in no way would there be so great a dependence of the species on what is contained, as there is; and so it would never be a sign so leading [to the thing signified][^1].

**On the contrary:** 1. It is less unfitting that a non-glorified body be at the same time with a glorified one, than that an accident be without a subject[^2]: if therefore a glorified body were at the same time with the bread, it would be much less unfitting than that the accidents be without a subject, and more credible: therefore it was more fitting that the accidents remain in a subject than be separated.

2. Likewise, those accidents lead to the understanding that there is the substance of bread there, since they are the proper accidents of bread and signs of the substance[^3]: therefore in this Sacrament, since there is no substance, there is some falsity; but it is not seemly that there be falsity in the Sacrament of truth: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, by the work of a miracle prejudice ought not to be done to the nature of a thing; but when a thing is placed in a location which does not befit its nature, although it be nobler, nevertheless prejudice is done to it, as if a worm were placed in heaven[^4], or a foot on the shoulders: therefore likewise, when a property is given to it which does not befit its nature. But to be without a subject is a property in no way befitting the nature of an accident: therefore it is not fitting that this be given to it by a miracle.

4. Likewise, the intellect is weaker for believing the contrary of what it perceives, than the sense is for receiving something horrible[^5] to it — for the sense can do this without grace, as is clear in one who takes medicine, but the intellect cannot — but nothing ought to be done as a comfort to the lesser weakness, which is done to the prejudice of the greater: if therefore the veiling of the accidents conceals from the intellect what is there, in no way ought the accidents to have remained there.

> **Conclusion.** It is fitting that in the Eucharist the accidents remain, and indeed without a subject.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is fitting that the accidents remain there; because they are, as Hugh says[^6], for the comfort of sense and for the merit of faith. For while the true body of flesh is veiled, both faith merits more by believing what it does not see, and the sense more willingly receives.

But it is fitting that they alone remain without a subject: on account of a *more efficacious signification*, because they lead more efficaciously and more perfectly into what is signified, since they do not have there anything stabilizing them by nature. — On account of *fitting nourishment*; for since this food is spiritual, therefore the soul must be lifted up from the carnality of sense through faith, and from carnal delight through charity[^7]; and therefore material bread ought not to have remained there. — On account of the *promotion of faith*; for while the intellect is lifted up to understand what is above nature, namely that the accidents are without a subject, it becomes more apt to believe what is above itself, that the whole Christ is in so small a host[^8]. — The fourth reason, on account of the *perfection of the divine works*, which ought to be found in this Sacrament, since it is most perfect. And a twofold perfection is observed in this Sacrament: the first is in this, that the accidents receive a most noble mode of being, namely to be through themselves[^9]; and in this, that that substance which was underneath, since it was material and corruptible, is transubstantiated into a substance, that is, into a body spiritual and incorruptible and into a body joined to the Divinity and glorious.

<!-- page 273 -->

1. To the objection therefore which is raised, that it is less unfitting; it must be said that this is not unfitting to this Sacrament, but rather very fitting.

2. To the objection which is raised concerning falsity, it must be said that one must not assent to sense, but to faith; and therefore there is nothing at all of falsity there, but of truth.

3. To the objection which is raised, that prejudice ought not to be done to the nature of a thing; it must be said that there is a twofold order of things, one namely universal, the other particular, which is owed to this thing or that. I say therefore that by a miracle nothing ought to be done to the prejudice of the universal order; for if the foot were in the head, it would be to the prejudice of the whole body; likewise neither [ought there be done] anything that would be to the prejudice of the whole universe. But although the nature of some thing be bettered and receive a state of greater nobility than befits its nature, provided that a fitting ordering be made, it comes about fittingly according to the order of the universe; and so in the case at hand, because these things are ordered to the utility of man. — Or it must be said that it befits the nature of each thing to obey the Creator, and that is befitting to its nature which the Creator has commanded, [a thing] which, if it is not befitting before, afterward becomes befitting.

4. To the objection which is raised concerning the weakness of the intellect, it must be said that this would be true, unless another medicine were given to it; and this is the grace of faith, by which the intellect is strengthened to believe without doubt what it does not see.

---

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. I. c. 3. — Codd. N aa subnectunt *ad cognitionem alterius*, cod. bb a secunda manu in suum signatam, sicut est.

en: Cf. above the text of the Master, d. I, c. 3. — Codices N aa append *for the knowledge of another*; codex bb, by a second hand, [reads it] as marked into its own [text], as it is.

la: Vide infra d. 49. p. II. art. 2. princip. a. 3. q. I. — In fine arg. pro *separari* plurimi codd. *separata*, cod. R *separata esse*.

en: See below d. 49, p. II, art. 2, principal a. 3, q. I. — At the end of the argument, for *separari* very many codices [read] *separata*; codex R *separata esse*.

la: Aristot., I. de Anima, text. 11. (c. 1.): Accidentia conferunt secundum magnam partem ad cognoscendum ipsum quid est.

en: Aristotle, *On the Soul* I, text 11 (c. 1): The accidents contribute in great part to knowing the very [essence], what it is.

la: Cod. E *ut manus, si poneretur in oculo*; sed cfr. tom. I. pag. 787, nota 1. verba August. de vermiculo.

en: Codex E [reads] *as a hand, if it were placed in the eye*; but cf. tom. I, p. 787, note 1, the words of Augustine concerning the little worm.

la: Codd. L bb *terribile*, plures codd. cum ed. 1 *occurribile*, Vat. *occurribile nocibile*.

en: Codices L bb [read] *terribile*; several codices with the first edition *occurribile*; the Vatican [edition] *occurribile nocibile*.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 8: Sic sumendam proposuit, ut sensus in uno foveretur, et fides in altero aedificaretur. Fovetur enim sensus in uno, dum solita tantum et consueta percipit; aedificatur autem fides in altero, dum in eo quod videt, quale sit illud quod non videt, agnoscit. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 34. — Inferius pro *corpus carnis* codd. B H Q *corpus Christi* [cod. B addit *et sanguis*]. Aliquanto post pro *Congruum autem est* cod. O *Congruum tunc est*, cod. M *Congruum etiam est*, codd. R S *Congruum est*.

en: [Hugh of St. Victor,] *On the Sacraments* II, p. VIII, c. 8: He proposed that it be taken in such a way that the sense might be cherished in the one and faith built up in the other. For the sense is cherished in the one, while it perceives only the customary and accustomed; but faith is built up in the other, while in that which it sees it recognizes what kind of thing that is which it does not see. Cf. Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 34. — Below, for *body of flesh* codices B H Q [read] *body of Christ* [codex B adds *and blood*]. Somewhat after, for *But it is fitting* codex O [reads] *Then it is fitting*, codex M *It is also fitting*, codices R S *It is fitting*.

la: Ita codd. H I K, alii codd. cum edd. *dilectione* (propter scripturam abbreviatam plures codd. sunt dubiae lectionis).

en: So codices H I K; other codices with the editions [read] *dilectione* [love] (on account of the abbreviated writing several codices are of doubtful reading).

la: Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. et 5. nec non p. II. a. 2. q. I.

en: Cf. above d. 10, p. I, q. 1 and 5, as well as p. II, a. 2, q. I.

la: Vide quaest. praeced. — Inferius pro *corruptibilis* codd. A F G H I K *corporalis*.

en: See the preceding question. — Below, for *corruptibilis* codices A F G H I K [read] *corporalis*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{271,272,273}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 30780–30901) as the base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo and footer regions (the raw OCR for this range was heavily two-column-bled and diagonally fragmented). Offset pdf = printed + 20. Distinction confirmed as **XII** via running heads `DIST. XII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. [I/III]` (OCR garbled the q2 head as `QU.VESTIO II` and the q3 head as `QUAESTK) III`).

**PAGE-RANGE CORRECTION (important hand-off).** The dispatch brief assigned printed pages **~271–272**. Eyes-on the PDF bands shows q2's body is actually on **printed pp. 272–273**, not 271. **Printed p. 271 belongs entirely to q1** (a1-q1): its running head reads `QUAEST. I.`, its body is q1's solutio-oppositorum replies (3,4,5…), and the `SCHOLION` printed at the bottom of p. 271 is **q1's scholion** (§I Wikleff / Concilii Constant. damnata / Trent Sess. 13 c. 1; §II on the duplex specierum subiectum / physical accidents; §III the q1/q2/q3 *locos auctorum* listing — which bleeds onto the top of p. 272 L col). **q2 (QUAESTIO II) opens at the top of p. 272 R col** and its replies finish on **p. 273 L col** just before `QUAESTIO III`. Accordingly this chunk's frontmatter is set to **printed_pages [272, 273] / pdf_pages [292, 293]**. The q1 chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-a1-q1`) should verify it captured p. 271's q1-scholion (all three keyed sections).

**Page-split map.**
- p. 272 (L col): tail of the q1-scholion §III; the **QUAESTIO II** header + title; q2 opener ("Secundo quaeritur…"); arg. pro 1 (*Fundamenta*); *Contra* 1–4; footnotes 1–6.
- p. 272 (R col): continuation of the q1-scholion *locos auctorum* list; CONCLUSIO; RESPONDEO in full (the four *rationes*: efficacior significatio · conveniens cibatio · fidei promotio · divinorum operum perfectio / duplex perfectio); footnotes 7–9.
- p. 272 → 273 boundary falls inside the Respondeo's last sentence ("… in corpus Divinitati coniunctum et gloriosum" closes p. 272 R; the replies open p. 273 L).
- p. 273 (L col): the solutio-oppositorum replies 1–4 (printed under the `QUAEST. III` running head, but textually still q2), ending "… quod non videt." Then `QUAESTIO III` begins (next chunk). These replies carry **no** footnote markers; p. 273's footers all belong to q3.

**Footer-ownership / apparatus (9 entries).** All nine numbered Quaracchi footers anchoring in q2's body are on **printed p. 272** (left col 1–6, right col 7–9), rendered here as `^1`–`^9`. Page 273's footers (1–8 visible across the L/R bands) belong to **q3** and are not rendered here.

**SCHOLION finding — this chunk (q2) renders NO scholion.** `has_scholion: false`. Scanning the raw range and the PDF bands, the only `SCHOLION.` header in this region prints on **p. 271, within q1** — it is the Articulus's scholion and is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d12-p1-a1-q1`. q3 (`…-q3`) prints "De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." (p. 273, q3 ftn. 2), i.e. it points back to the q1 scholion. There is no q2-specific scholion in the print, and no Art-I-wide scholion block falls inside q2's pages. **q2 therefore renders none and points to the q1 scholion.** (This differs from the d.11-a1 pattern, where the Articulus scholion was physically printed after q2; here it is printed after q1.)

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Notable silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands: head *QUAESTIO II* (OCR "QU.VESTIO II"); *ductivum* (OCR "ductivum"); *praeiudicium* (OCR "praeindicium"/"praeiudicium" mixed); *horribile* (OCR "horribile"; cod. variants *terribile*/*occurribile* preserved in ftn. 5); *medicamentum* (OCR "raedicamentum"); *transsubstantiatur* (OCR "transsubstantiatnr"); *efficaciorem significationem* (OCR "efpmciorem"). Marginal rubrics in the columns (*Fundamenta*, *Ad oppositum*, *Conclusio*, *Ratio duplex*, *Ratio 1–4*, *Perfectio duplex*, *Solutio oppositorum*, *duplex rerum ordo*, *Aliter*) are editorial side-notes, omitted from the body per corpus convention.


title: Dist. 12, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

source_text:
<!-- page 273 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum sit verum, accidentia ibi esse sine subiecto.*

Tertio quaeritur, utrum sit verum, accidentia ibi esse sine subiecto. Et quod non, videtur:

1. Quia *movere* et *operari* debetur substantiae, quae est *hoc aliquid*[^3]; sed accidentia illa habent *movere* et *operari*: ergo sunt in substantia.

2. Item, nullum accidens extenditur nisi in materia, quia omnis forma de se simplex est[^4]; sed constat, quod accidentia illa habent extensionem et maiorem possunt habere: ergo sunt in materia.

3. Item, miraculum non aufert operationem; sed albedo est lux incorporata[^5]: cessante ergo materia corporali, manet pura lux: ergo albedo per se deberet movere visum.

**Contra:** 1. Omne accidens, quod est in subiecto aliquo, denominat illud vel *simpliciter*, vel *secundum quid*[^6]; sed hoc non faciunt illae species, quia nec denominant panem nec corpus Christi nec aerem: ergo etc.

2. Item, accidentia naturalia non consequuntur materiam secundum *essentiam*, sed solum secundum *esse* ut sub forma completiva, nec aliter materia est accidentium subiectum[^7]; sed materia non est ibi sub forma panis — hoc constat — sed sub forma substantiali carnis; sed tales proprietates non sunt natae esse in carne Christi: ergo etc.

3. Item, quandocumque in aliqua mutatione salvatur accidens secundum *esse*, quod habet in subiecto, necesse est, quod sit commune ei quod mutatur, et in quod mutatur, ut si de aere fiat ignis, manet calidum[^8]; sed panis convertitur in corpus

<!-- page 274 -->

Christi, et color et sapor et odor non sunt communia utrisque: ergo vel non manent, vel non manent in subiecto; sed manent: ergo sunt sine subiecto.

> **Conclusio.** In eucharistia accidentia sunt sine subiecto, non in aere circumfuso.

**Respondeo:** Aliqui voluerunt dicere, quod species illae erant in aere circumfuso. — Sed illud manifeste falsum est, tum propter hoc quod non denominant accidentia aerem circumiacentem; tum etiam, quia impossibile est, accidens transmutare subiectum[^1d]; si ergo fuerunt in pane, non possunt esse in aere. Et iterum, aere mutato, transferuntur de uno loco ad alium. Item, locum replent et aerem expellunt; sed nullum locatum comparatur ad locum ut ad suum subiectum[^2d], et nullum accidens expellit subiectum proprium.

Propter haec et his similia communiter tenent magistri, quod accidentia sunt ibi sine subiecto.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de operationibus, dicendum, quod quaedam sunt ibi operationes *naturales*, quaedam *supra naturam*, quaedam *partim sic, partim sic*, et ideo ex operationibus nihil potest concludi; sed quae operationes sunt ibi naturales, infra[^3d] patebit. Attamen sicut miraculum est, quod accidentia *sunt* sine subiecto; ita miraculum est, ut *operentur* per se.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de extensione, dicendum, quod quantitas, *formaliter* loquendo, habet extensionem de natura sui generis[^4d]; unde cum salvatur quantitas, et extensio; sed tamen *causaliter* habet a substantia, et ideo, quia *esse* quantitatis et natura ortum habet a substantia. Sed divina virtus facit, quod sit quantitas vere et sine substantia; et hoc faciendo necesse est, extensionem salvari sine materia; et hoc miraculi est, non naturae.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de albedine, quod est lux incorporata; potest responderi dupliciter: primo, quod non est in *actu*, sed in *potentia*; et ideo, adhuc cessante corpore, manet adhuc in potentia[^5d]. — Secundo, quia non *omnino* cessat corpus, immo quamvis cesset substantia, manet dimensio, superficies et terminatio, et ideo albedo secundum illum actum solum, quem prius habebat[^6d].

english:
### Question III. *Whether it is true that the accidents are there without a subject.*

Thirdly it is asked whether it is true that the accidents are there without a subject. And that they are not, seems to be the case:

1. Because *to move* and *to operate* belongs to a substance, which is *a this-something*[^3]; but those accidents have *to move* and *to operate*: therefore they are in a substance.

2. Likewise, no accident is extended except in matter, because every form is of itself simple[^4]; but it is evident that those accidents have extension and can have a greater one: therefore they are in matter.

3. Likewise, a miracle does not take away operation; but whiteness is incorporated light[^5]: therefore, when the bodily matter ceases, pure light remains: therefore whiteness ought of itself to move sight.

**On the contrary:** 1. Every accident that is in some subject denominates it either *simply* or *in a certain respect*[^6]; but those species do not do this, because they denominate neither the bread nor the body of Christ nor the air: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, natural accidents do not follow upon matter according to its *essence*, but only according to its *being* as under a completive form, nor is matter otherwise the subject of accidents[^7]; but the matter is not there under the form of bread — this is evident — but under the substantial form of flesh; but such properties are not apt to be in the flesh of Christ: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, whenever in some change an accident is preserved according to the *being* which it has in the subject, it must needs be common to that which is changed and to that into which it is changed, as, if fire comes to be from air, the hot remains[^8]; but the bread is converted into the body of

<!-- page 274 -->

Christ, and color and savor and odor are not common to both: therefore either they do not remain, or they do not remain in a subject; but they remain: therefore they are without a subject.

> **Conclusion.** In the Eucharist the accidents are without a subject, not in the surrounding air.

**I respond:** Some have wished to say that those species were in the surrounding air. — But that is manifestly false, both on account of this, that the accidents do not denominate the surrounding air; and also because it is impossible for an accident to pass over into [another] subject[^1d]; if therefore they were in the bread, they cannot be in the air. And again, when the air is moved, they would be transferred from one place to another. Likewise, they fill a place and expel the air; but no thing-in-place is related to its place as to its subject[^2d], and no accident expels its own proper subject.

On account of these and similar considerations the masters commonly hold that the accidents are there without a subject.

1. To the objection from operations, it must be said that some operations there are *natural*, some *above nature*, some *partly so, partly so*, and therefore nothing can be concluded from the operations; but which operations there are natural will be made clear below[^3d]. Yet, just as it is a miracle that the accidents *are* without a subject, so it is a miracle that they *operate* of themselves.

2. To the objection from extension, it must be said that quantity, speaking *formally*, has extension from the nature of its own genus[^4d]; whence, when quantity is preserved, so also is extension; but nevertheless it has [extension] *causally* from substance, and therefore, because the *being* of quantity and its nature arise from substance. But the divine power brings it about that there be quantity truly and without substance; and in doing this it is necessary that extension be preserved without matter; and this belongs to miracle, not to nature.

3. To the objection from whiteness, that it is incorporated light, it can be answered in two ways: first, that it is not in *act*, but in *potency*; and therefore, even when the body has ceased, it remains still in potency[^5d]. — Secondly, because the body does not *altogether* cease, but rather, although the substance ceases, the dimension, surface, and termination remain, and therefore whiteness [remains] according to that act alone which it had before[^6d].

la: Aristot., I. Elench. c. 6. (c. 7.), docet, quod « unum et substantiam maxime videtur sequi id quod est *hoc aliquid* [τόδε τι] et ens »; et in Lib. de Praedicam. c. *de Substantia*, distinguens substantiam in *primam* (singularem) et *secundam* (genus et speciem) dicit: « In primis igitur substantiis indubitabile et verum est, quod *hoc aliquid* significant; individuum enim et unum numero est quod significatur. In secundis vero substantiis videtur quidem similiter... sed magis *quale aliquid* significant ». Cfr. tom. II. pag. 109, nota 7; pag. 197, nota 3. et pag. 375, nota 6. In II. de Anima, text. 2. (c. 1.) ait: « Dicimus itaque unum quoddam genus eorum quae sunt, substantiam. Huius autem aliud quidem sicut materiam, quod secundum se quidem non est hoc aliquid, aliud autem formam et speciem, secundum quam iam dicitur hoc aliquid, et tertium quod ex his ». Quae verba exponit S. Thom. (lect. I.) sic: « Materia quidem est, quae secundum se non est hoc aliquid, sed in potentia tantum, ut sit hoc aliquid. Forma autem est, secundum quam iam est hoc aliquid in actu. Substantia vero composita est quae est hoc aliquid. Dicitur enim esse hoc aliquid, id est aliquid demonstratum quod est completum in esse ».

en: Aristotle, *Sophistical Refutations* I, c. 6 (c. 7), teaches that "the one and substance most of all seem to follow that which is *a this-something* [τόδε τι] and a being"; and in the book *Categories*, c. *On Substance*, distinguishing substance into *primary* (the singular) and *secondary* (genus and species), he says: "In primary substances, then, it is indubitable and true that they signify *a this-something*; for what is signified is individual and one in number. But in secondary substances it seems indeed similar... yet they rather signify *a what-sort-of-something*." Cf. tom. II, p. 109, note 7; p. 197, note 3; and p. 375, note 6. In II *On the Soul*, text 2 (c. 1) he says: "We say, then, that one certain genus of the things that are is substance. Of this, one [aspect] is as matter, which of itself is not a this-something, another as form and species, according to which a thing is now called a this-something, and a third which is [composed] of these." S. Thomas (lect. I) expounds these words thus: "Matter is that which of itself is not a this-something, but only in potency to be a this-something. Form is that according to which a thing is now a this-something in act. But composite substance is that which is a this-something. For it is said to be a this-something, that is, something demonstrated which is complete in being."

la: Gilbert. Porret., de Sex Principiis, c. 1: « Forma est compositioni contingens, simplici et invariabili essentia consistens ». Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Quanto*, recensens ea quae secundum accidens dicuntur quanta, ait: Album quantum quid sit assignans, superficie definiet; quanta enim fuerit superficies, tantum album esse dicit. Cfr. V. Metaph. text. 18. (IV. c. 13.).

en: Gilbert de la Porrée, *On the Six Principles*, c. 1: "A form is something accruing to a composite, consisting in a simple and invariable essence." Aristotle, *Categories*, c. *On Quantity*, in reviewing those things that are said to be quantified by accident, says: in assigning what the white is quantitatively, he will define it by surface; for as great as the surface is, so great does he say the white to be. Cf. V *Metaphysics*, text 18 (IV, c. 13).

la: Pro exemplo communiter illud adducitur, quod ponit Aristot. I. Elench. c. 4. (c. 5.), scil. Aethiops est albus secundum dentes (secundum quid).

en: As an example, that is commonly adduced which Aristotle sets down in I *Sophistical Refutations*, c. 4 (c. 5), namely: the Ethiopian is white as to his teeth (in a certain respect).

la: Aristot., VII. Metaph. text. 8. (VI. c. 3.): Dico autem materiam, quae per se ipsam [secundum essentiam] neque quid, neque quantum nec aliquid aliud quippiam dicitur, quibus ens determinatur. Cfr. II. Sent. d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. — Superius pro *ut sub*, quod habet cod. O, cod. A *in*, alii codd. *ut*, Vat. legit *scilicet ut forma completur*. In fine arg. post *Christi* cod. N addit *quia albedo panis non est albedo carnis Christi.*

en: Aristotle, VII *Metaphysics*, text 8 (VI, c. 3): "I call matter that which of itself [according to its essence] is said to be neither a what, nor a how-much, nor anything else of those by which being is determined." Cf. II *Sent.*, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 2. — Above, for *ut sub*, which codex O has, codex A [reads] *in*, other codices *ut*, the Vatican [edition] reads *scilicet ut forma completur*. At the end of the argument, after *Christi*, codex N adds *because the whiteness of bread is not the whiteness of the flesh of Christ.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 25. (c. 4.), ubi ostendit elementorum, quae cognationem habent ad invicem, velociorem esse transmutationem: « Ut ex igne quidem erit aer, altero transmutato; illud enim erat calidum et siccum, hoc autem calidum et humidum; quapropter, si vincatur siccum ab humido, aer erit ».

en: Cf. Aristotle, II *On Generation and Corruption*, text 25 (c. 4), where he shows that the transmutation of elements which have a kinship to one another is swifter: "Thus from fire there will be air, with the one [quality] transmuted; for the former was hot and dry, the latter hot and moist; wherefore, if the dry is overcome by the moist, there will be air."

la: *Vel*, ut Vat. exponit, *transmigrare de subiecto in subiectum.* Cfr. tom. I. pag. 462, nota 11. verba Boethii; cod. aa addit: *quia secundum Boethium accidentia indignantis naturae sunt, perimi possunt, permutari autem nequaquam.* Paulo inferius pro *aere mutato* eadem Vat. *aere non mutato.*

en: *Or*, as the Vatican [edition] explains, *to migrate from subject into subject.* Cf. tom. I, p. 462, note 11, the words of Boethius; codex aa adds: *because, according to Boethius, the accidents of an indignant nature can be destroyed, but in no way changed over.* A little below, for *with the air moved* the same Vatican [edition reads] *with the air not moved.*

la: Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 23-31. (c. 3.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, IV *Physics*, text 23–31 (c. 3).

la: Art. seq. q. 3.

en: The following article, q. 3.

la: Scilicet extensionem partium extra partes in ordine ad situm. Cfr. supra d. 10. p. I. q. 4. ad 2.

en: Namely, the extension of parts outside of parts in relation to position. Cf. above, d. 10, p. I, q. 4, ad 2.

la: Sensus est: Sicut, existente substantia panis, color (lux incorporata) per se est tantum in potentia ad movendum visum, nisi lux exterior (non incorporata) accedat; ita et, cessante substantia panis, color erit tantum in potentia etc.

en: The sense is: just as, with the substance of bread existing, color (incorporated light) is of itself only in potency to moving sight, unless an exterior (non-incorporated) light comes in; so too, with the substance of bread ceasing, color will be only in potency, etc.

la: Supple: *manet*, scil. ut apta movere visum. Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 1. § 2, ubi eandem obiectionem solvens, ait: « quod lux, prout est de *esse albedinis*, non est in actu suo... est enim albedo naturaliter ex incorporatione lucis cum subiecto albedinis, subiecto, dico, *substantia*, non quantitate sola. Sed virtute mirabili est incorporatio lucis, quae est de *esse albedinis*, in specie panis in subiecto, scilicet in *quantitate*, et ex illa incorporatione est consimili modo potentia, quae ante fuit ex incorporatione in subiecto substantia etc. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaestionem.

en: Supply: *it remains*, namely as apt to move sight. Cf. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV, q. 10, m. 7, a. 1, § 2, where, in solving the same objection, he says: "that light, insofar as it pertains to the *being of whiteness*, is not in its act... for whiteness comes naturally from the incorporation of light with the subject of whiteness — the subject, I say, being *substance*, not quantity alone. But by a wondrous power the incorporation of light, which pertains to the *being of whiteness*, is in the species of bread in a subject, namely in *quantity*, and from that incorporation there is in a similar way a potency, which before came from the incorporation in the subject which is substance," etc. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

latin_scholion:
Scholion in articulum unicum (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 unicum (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{273,274}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 30902–31085) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Per the Vol II/IV override, the PDF is authoritative in the cascade-shattered regions — and the OCR for this q3 is *severely* two-column-interleaved (the right-column q3 text bled into the left-column lines line-for-line, and the q2 apparatus is spliced through the page), so the PDF bands carried the entire reconstruction. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 273–274 = PDF 293–294).

**Page-verify.** Running heads confirmed on the bands: p. 273 = "DIST. XII. P. I. ART. I. QUAEST. III. 273"; p. 274 = "274 … SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." Distinction/pars/article all correct.

**Opener alignment.** Confirmed: the q3 opener at the bottom of p. 273 L column reads "QUAESTIO III. *Utrum sit verum, accidentia ibi esse sine subiecto.* Tertio quaeritur, utrum sit verum, accidentia ibi esse sine subiecto. Et quod non, videtur…" — matches the assigned title.

**Page-split map.**
- p. 273 (bottom, L col.): QUAESTIO III. header + opener + args. 1–3 (L col.) and *Contra* 1 opening.
- p. 273 (R col.): *Contra* 1 completes (". . . nec aerem: ergo etc."); *Contra* 2–3 (the 2nd/3rd "Item" objections; arg. 3 breaks mid-sentence ". . . in corpus").
- p. 273 → 274 boundary inside *Contra* 3 ("in corpus" | "Christi, et color et sapor . . .").
- p. 274 (L col.): *Contra* 3 completes; CONCLUSIO; Respondeo (reproof of the *in aere* opinion); start of Solutiones (*Ad 1* opens "Ad illud quod obiicitur de operationibus, dicendum,").
- p. 274 (R col.): Solutiones *Ad 1*–*Ad 3* complete (". . . quem prius habebat."), immediately before the ARTICULUS II. header.

**Footer-ownership (apparatus, 12 entries total, all anchored in this q3's body).**
- p. 273: the page's footer sequence is **8 notes**, but notes **1–2 anchor in the preceding q2's body** (note 1 = "Cfr. I. Sent. d. 42. q. 3. circa finem…"; note 2 = "Vide III. Sent. d. 23. dub. 1. — De ipsa quaestione vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") and are owned by the **a1-q2 chunk**. q3 owns **notes 3–8** (`^3` arg. 1 *hoc aliquid*; `^4` arg. 2 *simplex est*; `^5` arg. 3 *lux incorporata*; `^6` *Contra* 1 *secundum quid*; `^7` *Contra* 2 *accidentium subiectum*; `^8` *Contra* 3 *manet calidum*).
- p. 274: **6 footers**, all q3's — relabeled `^1d`–`^6d` here (`^1d` Respondeo *transmutare subiectum*; `^2d` Respondeo *ad suum subiectum*; `^3d` *Ad 1* *infra patebit*; `^4d` *Ad 2* *de natura sui generis*; `^5d` *Ad 3* *manet adhuc in potentia*; `^6d` *Ad 3* *quem prius habebat*). The p. 274 sequence continues with note 7 ("Vers. 21. — Glossa Strabi…") which opens the ARTICULUS II. q1 apparatus and is owned by the a2-q1 chunk.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`, but **q3 renders none of its own**: the Articulus Unicus (a1) carries a single SCHOLION block (q1/q2/q3 bibliography) which the **a1-q1 chunk** owns and renders. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line Latin+English cross-reference per the dispatch instruction. No "SCHOLION." header occurs inside the raw range 30902–31085. (Both note 2 on p. 273 and note `^6d` on p. 274 contain the textual cross-pointer "Vide scholion ad praecedentem/1. huius articuli quaest.")

**[?] flags.** None unresolved. Silent OCR corrections from the PDF bands (OCR was cascade-interleaved): *secundum quid* (Contra 1); *accidentium subiectum* / *substantiali carnis* (Contra 2); *manet calidum* (Contra 3); Respondeo *circumiacentem* / *transferuntur* / *expellunt*; Conclusio *circumfuso*; Solutio 2 *formaliter* / *causaliter* / *sui generis*; Solutio 3 *incorporata* / *dimensio, superficies et terminatio*. Marginal rubrics in the bands (*Solutio oppositorum*, *Opinio 1. reprobatur 4 rationibus*, *Conclusio*, *Notandum*, *Resp. 1.* / *Resp. 2.*) are editorial side-notes and are omitted from the body per corpus convention.

**Hand-off to ARTICULUS II.** ARTICULUS II ("De actione et transmutatione accidentium") opens on p. 274 R column immediately after q3's *Ad 3* (raw line ~31086). Its TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the three questions: *converti in alimentum* / *alias species convertere* / *operationes per naturam an miraculum*) and QUAESTIO I header begin there; p. 274's note 7 onward (Glossa Strabi etc.) is the a2-q1 apparatus, not q3's.