title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt: Utrum fuerint sufficientes quatuor figurae

title_alt: Whether the four figures were sufficient

source_text:
<!-- page 182 -->

### Quaestio II. *De numero et sufficientia quatuor figurarum.*

Secundo quaeritur de numero et sufficientia figurarum huius Sacramenti; et Magister[^1] assignat quatuor, scilicet agnum paschalem, manna, sacrificium Melchisedech et sanguinem, qui profluxit de latere Christi. Sed videtur, quod Magister assignet insufficienter:

1. Quia aliae figurae praecesserunt in sacrificiis et oblationibus diversorum, ut in hoedo, quem obtulit Manue, *Iudicum* decimo tertio[^2], et favo mellis, *primi Regum* decimo quarto.

2. Item, videtur falsus in assignando manna pro figura: quia habuit *omnem* saporem[^3]; sed hoc non habet eucharistia, quia tunc alia Sacramenta superfluerent.

3. Item, obiicitur de *oblatione Melchisedech*[^4]: quia ipse obtulit et dedit Abrahae; sed Sacramentum eucharistiae offertur Deo: et ita non videtur figura.

4. Item, obiicitur de *agno paschali* et eius sanguine: quoniam praecessit transitum maris rubri[^5]; ergo figuram baptismi; et ita videtur, si recta fuit figura, quod et eucharistia fuit ante baptismum; quod absurdum est.

5. Item, obiicitur de *sanguine*, qui fluxit de latere Christi[^6]: quia ille idem est in hoc Sacramento secundum *veritatem* et est *signatum* in hoc Sacramento: ergo idem est figura sui, et idem est signum et signatum respectu eiusdem; quod est omnino inconveniens.

### Conclusio.

> *Sufficienter a Magistro assignantur quatuor figurae eucharistiae.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Magister sufficienter assignat figuras in hoc Sacramento, habito respectu ad omnes leges. Nam in lege naturae ponit figuram sacrificium Melchisedech, et in lege Moysi similiter agnum et manna, et in lege gratiae sanguinem passionis. — Similiter sufficientes sunt figurae, si attendamus ad ea quae praesignantur. Nam in hoc Sacramento est *visibilis forma*, et haec praesignata est in sacrificio Melchisedech; et est *res contenta*[^7], et haec in agno paschali; et *res signata* tantum, et haec in manna; et *virtus dans efficaciam*, et haec in sanguine, qui fluxit de latere Christi. — Unde tres primae tenent rationem figurae, sed ultima magis tenet rationem causae, nihilominus tamen habet rationem figurae, pensatis circumstantiis, quod de passo et iam mortuo profluxit *sanguis et aqua*[^8].

1. Quod ergo obiicitur de sufficientia, iam patet: quia aliae figurae reducuntur ad has; omnes enim oblationes et omnia sacrificia ad agnum paschalem, et omnes cibi ad manna reduci possunt.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de manna, dicendum, quod *omnem* tantum valet dicere quantum perfectum; vel si *omnem* distributive dicatur, intelligitur quantum ad rem contentam[^9]; vel si intelligatur quantum ad effectum, facienda est vis in sapore quantum ad actum cibandi; et tunc alia non superfluunt.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de sacrificio Melchisedech, dicendum, quod peroptime praefiguratum est ibi et in manna Sacramentum eucharistiae: quoniam hoc Sacramentum nobis profertur ad esum et Deo offertur ad cultum; et ideo datur nobis divinitus, et nos Deo offerimus; et hoc signatum est in manna, quod repositum fuit in urna coram Domino[^10], quia datum fuit de caelo ad esum, et iterum coram Domino repositum; taliter datur hoc Sacramentum, si quis inspiciat diligentius: quia de caelo nobis datur, et nos sumimus, tamen nihilominus Deo offerimus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de agno paschali, dicendum, quod agnus ille proprie significabat Christi passionem[^11], quae erat radix et fundamentum
<!-- page 183 -->
virtutem praebens omnibus Sacramentis, et ideo omnia praecessit. Et quamvis omnia Sacramenta efficaciam habeant a passione; quia in hoc Sacramento veraciter continetur Christus passus, ideo esus et usus illius agni praecipue hoc Sacramentum signabat, et ideo figuram baptismi praecedebat non ratione, qua illud Sacramentum praefigurabat, sed ratione, qua praefigurabat passionem.

5. Ad ultimum dicendum, quod sanguis Christi, qui fluxit de latere Christi, non habuit, proprie loquendo, rationem figurae, quia ibi erat veritas; tamen ratione modi emanandi, quia profluxit de latere mortui, habuit rationem quodam modo praefigurandi, maxime ratione annexi, scilicet aquae; et istud melius tactum fuit in principio huius libri[^12]. Et sic patet solutio obiectorum[^13].

---

english:
<!-- page 182 -->

### Question II. *On the number and sufficiency of the four figures.*

Secondly it is asked concerning the number and sufficiency of the figures of this Sacrament; and the Master[^1] assigns four, namely the paschal lamb, manna, the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and the blood which flowed from the side of Christ. But it seems that the Master assigns them insufficiently:

1. For other figures preceded in the sacrifices and oblations of various persons, as in the kid which Manoah offered, *Judges* the thirteenth[^2], and the honeycomb, *first of Kings* the fourteenth.

2. Likewise, he seems to be mistaken in assigning manna as a figure: because it had *every* savor[^3]; but the eucharist does not have this, because then the other Sacraments would be superfluous.

3. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the *oblation of Melchisedech*[^4]: because he himself offered and gave it to Abraham; but the Sacrament of the eucharist is offered to God: and so it does not seem to be a figure.

4. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the *paschal lamb* and its blood: since it preceded the crossing of the Red Sea[^5]; therefore [it was] a figure of baptism; and so it seems that, if it was a correct figure, the eucharist too existed before baptism; which is absurd.

5. Likewise, an objection is raised concerning the *blood* which flowed from the side of Christ[^6]: because that very same [blood] is in this Sacrament according to *truth* and is the *thing signified* in this Sacrament: therefore the same thing is a figure of itself, and the same thing is sign and thing-signified with respect to the same thing; which is altogether unfitting.

### Conclusion.

> *The four figures of the eucharist are sufficiently assigned by the Master.*

**Respondeo:** It must be said that the Master sufficiently assigns the figures in this Sacrament, with respect had to all the laws. For in the law of nature he sets as a figure the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and in the law of Moses likewise the lamb and the manna, and in the law of grace the blood of the passion. — Likewise the figures are sufficient if we attend to the things which are prefigured. For in this Sacrament there is a *visible form*, and this was prefigured in the sacrifice of Melchisedech; and there is the *thing contained*[^7], and this [was prefigured] in the paschal lamb; and the *thing signified* only, and this in the manna; and the *power giving efficacy*, and this in the blood which flowed from the side of Christ. — Hence the first three hold the character of a figure, but the last rather holds the character of a cause; nonetheless it has the character of a figure, the circumstances being weighed, namely that from one suffered and already dead there flowed *blood and water*[^8].

1. As for what is objected concerning sufficiency, it is now plain: because the other figures are reduced to these; for all oblations and all sacrifices can be reduced to the paschal lamb, and all foods to the manna.

2. To that which is objected concerning the manna, it must be said that *every* is worth as much as saying "perfect"; or if *every* be taken distributively, it is understood with respect to the thing contained[^9]; or if it be understood with respect to the effect, stress is to be laid on the savor with respect to the act of feeding; and then the others are not superfluous.

3. To that which is objected concerning the sacrifice of Melchisedech, it must be said that the Sacrament of the eucharist was most excellently prefigured both there and in the manna: since this Sacrament is set before us for eating and is offered to God for worship; and therefore it is given to us from God, and we offer it to God; and this was signified in the manna, which was laid up in the urn before the Lord[^10], because it was given from heaven for eating, and again laid up before the Lord; in such a manner is this Sacrament given, if one looks more diligently: because it is given to us from heaven, and we take it, yet nonetheless we offer it to God.

4. To that which is objected concerning the paschal lamb, it must be said that that lamb properly signified the passion of Christ[^11], which was the root and foundation
<!-- page 183 -->
furnishing power to all the Sacraments, and therefore it preceded all things. And although all the Sacraments have their efficacy from the passion; because in this Sacrament Christ who suffered is truly contained, therefore the eating and use of that lamb signified this Sacrament especially, and therefore it preceded the figure of baptism, not by the reason by which that Sacrament prefigured, but by the reason by which it prefigured the passion.

5. To the last it must be said that the blood of Christ, which flowed from the side of Christ, did not have, properly speaking, the character of a figure, because there was the truth there; yet by reason of the manner of its flowing forth, because it flowed from the side of the dead one, it had in a certain way the character of prefiguring, especially by reason of what was annexed, namely the water; and this was better treated at the beginning of this book[^12]. And thus the solution of the objections is plain[^13].

---

la: Hic in lit. c. 2.

en: Here in the text [of the Master], c. 2.

la: Vers. 19. — Seq. loc. est I. Reg. 14, 27.

en: Verse 19. — The following passage is I Kings 14:27.

la: Sap. 16, 20: *Omne delectamentum in se habentem et omnis saporis suavitatem.*

en: Wisdom 16:20: *Having in itself all delight and the sweetness of every savor.*

la: Cfr. Gen. 14, 18. seqq.; Hebr. 7, 1. seqq.

la: Vide Exod. 12, 3. seqq. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Inferius ante *eucharistia* codd. omittunt *et*.

en: See Exod. 12:3ff. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2. — Below, before *eucharistia* the codices omit *et*.

la: Codd. K aa addunt: *ut est corpus Christi, quod traxit de Virgine.* Inferius post *res signata tantum* in cod. L subiungitur scilicet *corpus Christi mysticum.* Cfr. de his infra p. II. huius dist. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Codices K, aa add: *as it is the body of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin.* Below, after *res signata tantum*, in cod. L there is added, namely, *the mystical body of Christ.* Cf. on these matters below, in part II of this distinction, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Ioan. 19, 34. — Vide inferius solut. ad 5.

en: John 19:34. — See below, the reply to [objection] 5.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 2, adiungit: *Ut enim dicit Augustinus, ultimo de Civ. Dei [XXII. c. 30. n. 1.], ipse est «quaecumque ab hominibus honeste desiderantur».*

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, part IV, q. 10, member 1, a. 2, adds: *For as Augustine says, in the last book of the City of God [XXII, c. 30, n. 1], he himself is «whatever is honorably desired by men».*

la: Hebr. 9, 4: *In qua [arca] urna aurea habens manna.*

en: Heb. 9:4: *In which [ark there was] a golden urn holding manna.*

la: Cfr. August., de Cataclysmo, c. 1. n. 5. seq.; Gregor., II. Homil. in Evang. homil. 22. n. 7. seqq., ex quo sumtus est c. *Quid sit sanguis* (75.), de Consecrat. d. 2; Raban., 1. Comment. in Exod. 12, 1. seqq., ex quo plura refert Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum. — Inferius post *quia* edd. addunt *tamen*.

en: Cf. Augustine, *On the Cataclysm*, c. 1, n. 5f.; Gregory, *Homilies on the Gospels*, book II, homily 22, n. 7ff., from which is taken the chapter *Quid sit sanguis* (75), *On the Consecration*, d. 2; Rabanus, *Commentary on Exodus*, book 1, on 12:1ff., from which the *Glossa ordinaria* in Strabo reports much. — Below, after *quia*, the editions add *tamen*.

la: Edd. subiungunt scilicet *in prooemio.* Cfr. etiam infra d. 11. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. ad 5. — Alex. Hal., loc. cit., praeter illam expositionem, secundum quam sanguis fluens de latere Christi potius sit causa demonstrativa suum effectum quam figura demonstrans figuratum, adhuc aliam adducit, scil. quod sanguis ille *visibilis* fuerit figura sanguinis *invisibiliter* in Sacramento contenti; de quo vide infra lit. Magistri, d. X. c. 1, et ibid. Comment. p. 1. dub. 4.

en: The editions add, namely, *in the proem.* Cf. also below, d. 11, part II, a. 1, q. 3, ad 5. — Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., besides that exposition (according to which the blood flowing from the side of Christ is rather a cause demonstrating its effect than a figure demonstrating the thing figured), adduces yet another, namely that that *visible* blood was a figure of the blood *invisibly* contained in the Sacrament; on which see below, the text of the Master, d. X, c. 1, and there the Commentary, part 1, dub. 4.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 20723–20838) and reflowed column-by-column against the PDF column-bands for printed pp. 182–183 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p18{2,3}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; pdf = printed + 20). The whole question is clean two-column body; the Respondeo/Solutio and all footers were verified against the PDF bands per the Vol II/IV OCR-priority inversion. English is a fresh literal translation.
- **Alignment confirmed:** opener at L20725 "De numero et sufficientia quatuor figurarum" / "Secundo quaeritur de numero et sufficientia figurarum… Magister assignat quatuor" = ART I, q2 (the four figures). q1 (L20561–20722) precedes; QUAESTIO III *De figurarum praeeminentia* (L20839+) follows and is excluded.
- **Page-split map:** Question body runs pp. 182 (videtur 1–5, Conclusio, Respondeo, replies 1–3 and the head of reply 4) → 183 (tail of reply 4 + reply 5 "Et sic patet solutio obiectorum"). Page break placed mid-reply-4 at "quae erat radix et fundamentum | virtutem praebens…". QUAESTIO III begins immediately after this question on p. 183.
- **Footer-ownership:** p. 182's footer block (notes 1–11) is entirely anchored in this question's body and is claimed in full here as [^1]–[^11]. On p. 183 the page's footer numbering restarts; its notes 1 and 2 anchor in this question's tail ("in principio huius libri¹", "solutio obiectorum²") and are claimed here as [^12]–[^13]. p. 183 footer notes 3–9 (Ambrosius, lex naturae, Hugo de S. Victore, Gen. 14:18, etc.) anchor in QUAESTIO III and are LEFT TO a1-q3 (L20839+). a1-q1 owns all prior apparatus (L20561–20722) and the article-level SCHOLION at L20675 ("De nomine huius admirabilis Sacramenti… Tres huius articuli quaestiones…").
- **Scholion disposition:** `has_scholion: false`. This question carries no question-level scholion. The article scholion at L20675 belongs to a1-q1; the consolidated article scholion at L21026 ("De 1. et 2. quaestione… Quoad 3. quaestionem…") falls after this question's range and is owned by a1-q3.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All OCR garbles in the range (`hoedo`, `vicere`, `Sirabum`, `coraiii`, etc.) were unambiguously resolved against the PDF bands.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt:
De figurarum praeeminentia
On the preeminence of the figures

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 183 -->

### Quaestio III. *De figurarum praeeminentia.*

Tertio quaeritur circa hoc de figurarum praeeminentia, et quaeritur, quae figura sit expressior, utrum illa quae fuit tempore legis *naturae*, an illa quae fuit tempore legis *Moysaicae*, an illa quae fuit tempore legis *gratiae*. Et quod illa quae fuit tempore legis *naturae*, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Ambrosii *de Sacramentis*[^1]: « Apparet, anteriora fuisse Sacramenta Christianorum quam Iudaeorum »; sed hoc non dicitur nisi ratione legis naturae: ergo aliquo modo magis fuerunt Sacramenta Christianorum in illo tempore: sed non quantum ad veritatem vel efficaciam: ergo quantum ad expressionem figurae.

2. Item, lex naturae magis convenit cum lege gratiae sive Evangelii quam lex Moysi, quia ius evangelicum plus habet de naturali dictamine quam de institutione, econtra est in lege Moysi[^2]: ergo et Sacramenta expressius figurant, ut videtur.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur *ratione*: quia Melchisedech obtulit sacrificium in pane et vino[^3], et in eisdem speciebus modo offertur et celebratur Sacramentum altaris: ergo cum non possit expressius figurari quam in simili secundum speciem; videtur, quod tunc praecessit figura expressissima.

**Ad oppositum** 1. arguit Hugo de sancto Victore[^4]: Sicut appropinquavit passio Salvatoris, ita signa debuerunt esse evidentiora; et ratio eius est, quia crevit cognitio veritatis: ergo cum tempore legis scriptae creverit cognitio veritatis, et appropinquaverit passio Salvatoris; videtur, quod figurae fuerunt expressiores.

2. Item, hoc videtur ad litteram in *manna*: quia cibus ille erat de caelo aequaliter omnes reficiens et omnibus communis et omnem suavitatem habens[^5]; sed panis et vinum ipsius Melchisedech de terra erat, et hoc Sacramentum *est panis de caelo descendens*: ergo videtur, quod figura mannae fuerit expressior.

### Conclusio.

> *Figurae illae diversarum legum in expressione mutuo se excedunt.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod figurae illarum legum secundum diversas considerationes mutuo se excedunt in expressione, sicut ostendunt rationes inductae. — Potest enim Sacramentum hoc praefigurari quantum ad *ritum*, vel quantum ad *effectum*, sive quantum ad *signum*, vel quantum ad *signatum*. Si quantum ad *ritum*, sic expressior figura praecessit in *sacrificio Melchisedech*, sicut probant rationes inductae; et hoc patet. Si autem quantum ad *effectum*, sic expresse praesignabatur in *manna*, sicut ostendunt rationes praedictae; et sic patet responsio ad utramque partem.

Sed tamen adhuc restat quaestio: quare expressior praefiguratio praecessit in lege *naturae* quantum ad *ritum*? Et ad hoc dicendum, quod quia Dominus instituit legem scriptam ut implendam et evacuandam, sicut veritas evacuat umbram; ideo, ne videremur iudaizare, disposuit figuras in lege Moysi dare expressas[^6], sed tamen differentes quantum ad ritum, ut manifeste ex earum institutione ostenderetur legis illius evacuatio et imperfectio; et ideo magis se dicit Christus sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech quam Aaron, ut ostendatur ibi legis et sacerdotii translatio, sicut ostendit Apostolus ad Hebraeos[^7]. Et sic patet totum.

---

english:
<!-- page 183 -->

### Question III. *On the preeminence of the figures.*

Thirdly it is asked concerning this, about the preeminence of the figures, and it is asked which figure is the more expressive: whether the one that existed in the time of the law of *nature*, or the one that existed in the time of the *Mosaic* law, or the one that existed in the time of the law of *grace*. And that the one which existed in the time of the law of *nature* [is the more expressive] seems [to be the case]:

1. By the authority of Ambrose, *On the Sacraments*[^1]: « It appears that the Sacraments of the Christians were earlier than those of the Jews »; but this is not said except by reason of the law of nature: therefore in some way the Sacraments of the Christians existed more [fully] in that time: yet not as to truth or efficacy: therefore as to the expressiveness of the figure.

2. Likewise, the law of nature agrees more with the law of grace, or of the Gospel, than does the law of Moses, because the evangelical law has more from natural dictate than from institution, whereas the contrary is the case in the law of Moses[^2]: therefore its Sacraments too figure [things] more expressively, as it seems.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by *reason*: because Melchisedech offered sacrifice in bread and wine[^3], and the Sacrament of the altar is now offered and celebrated in the same species: therefore, since it cannot be figured more expressively than in something like it as to species, it seems that then the most expressive figure preceded.

**On the contrary** 1. Hugh of Saint Victor argues[^4]: As the passion of the Savior drew near, so the signs ought to have been more evident; and the reason for this is that knowledge of the truth grew: therefore, since in the time of the written law knowledge of the truth grew, and the passion of the Savior drew near, it seems that the figures were more expressive.

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] to the letter in the *manna*: because that food was from heaven, refreshing all equally and common to all and having every sweetness[^5]; but the bread and wine of Melchisedech were from the earth, and this Sacrament *is the bread coming down from heaven*: therefore it seems that the figure of the manna was the more expressive.

### Conclusion.

> *Those figures of the different laws mutually exceed one another in expressiveness.*

**I respond:** It must be said that the figures of those laws, according to diverse considerations, mutually exceed one another in expressiveness, as the arguments brought forward show. — For this Sacrament can be prefigured as to its *rite*, or as to its *effect*, or as to its *sign*, or as to the *thing signified*. If as to the *rite*, then the more expressive figure preceded in the *sacrifice of Melchisedech*, as the arguments brought forward prove; and this is plain. But if as to the *effect*, then it was expressly presignified in the *manna*, as the aforesaid arguments show; and thus the response to both sides is plain.

But yet a question still remains: why did the more expressive prefiguration, as to the *rite*, precede in the law of *nature*? And to this it must be said that, because the Lord instituted the written law as something to be fulfilled and done away with, just as truth does away with the shadow; therefore, lest we should seem to judaize, he arranged to give the figures in the law of Moses expressed[^6], yet differing as to the rite, so that from their very institution the doing-away and imperfection of that law might be manifestly shown; and therefore Christ says of himself rather that he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech than of Aaron, in order that there might be shown there the transfer of the law and of the priesthood, as the Apostle shows to the Hebrews[^7]. And thus the whole is plain.

---

la: Libr. IV. c. 3. n. 10. et 11. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Inferius ex codd. B F H aa substituimus *non dicitur* pro *non videtur*.

en: [Ambrose, *On the Sacraments*,] book IV, c. 3, nn. 10 and 11. See here the text of the Master, c. 2. — Below, from codices B, F, H, aa, we substitute *non dicitur* ("is not said") for *non videtur* ("does not seem").

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, et III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1. ad 3.

en: Cf. above, d. 1, part II, a. 1, q. 3, and III *Sentences*, d. 40, q. 1, ad 3.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6. Verba ipsius vide supra d. 2. a. I. q. 2. fundam. I. — Inferius pro *ergo cum... crevit... appropinquavit* substituimus ex codd. H Z aa *ergo cum... creverit... appropinquaverit.*

en: *On the Sacraments*, book I, part XI, c. 6. For his words see above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 2, fundamentum 1. — Below, for *ergo cum... crevit... appropinquavit* we substitute, from codices H, Z, aa, *ergo cum... creverit... appropinquaverit.*

la: Exod. 16, 14. seqq., et Sap. 16, 20. seq. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 6, 50: *Hic est panis de caelo descendens.*

en: Exod. 16:14ff., and Wis. 16:20f. — The following text is John 6:50: *This is the bread which comes down from heaven.*

la: In cod. E manus secunda supplevit *quantum ad effectum.*

en: In codex E a second hand supplied *as to the effect.*

la: Cap. 7, 11. seqq. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Chapter 7:11ff. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 20839–20918) and reflowed column-by-column against the PDF column-bands for printed p. 183 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p183-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; pdf = printed + 20). Per the Vol II/IV OCR-priority inversion, the Respondeo, the Conclusio, and all footers were verified against the PDF bands; the running prose of the videtur/contra arguments rests on the OCR base. English is a fresh literal translation.
- **Alignment confirmed:** opener at L20841 "Tertio quaeritur circa hoc de figurarum praeeminentia, et quaeritur, quae figura sit expressior" = ART I, q3 (preeminence of the figures). The preceding chunk a1-q2 (L20723–20838, *De numero et sufficientia quatuor figurarum*) ends with "Et sic patet solutio obiectorum"; ARTICULUS II *De institutione* (L20919+, p. 184) follows and is excluded. The auto-chunker's "a2-q3" label was a misattribution; this is a1-q3.
- **Page-split map:** This question is wholly contained on printed p. 183. The body reflows: opener + videtur 1–3 + Ad oppositum 1–2 (left column, with arg. 2's tail "est panis de caelo descendens… expressior" bleeding to the top of the right column) → Conclusio + Respondeo + the trailing sub-question "Sed tamen adhuc restat quaestio…" (right column), ending at "Et sic patet totum." ARTICULUS II opens on p. 184.
- **Footer-ownership:** p. 183's footer numbering restarts at 1. Notes 1 ("Edd. subiungunt… in prooemio") and 2 ("Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.") anchor in a1-q2's tail ("in principio huius libri¹", "solutio obiectorum²") and are owned by **a1-q2** (rendered there as [^12]–[^13]); they are NOT repeated here. Notes 3–9 all anchor in THIS question's body (Ambrosius de Sacramentis³, lex naturae⁴ = Gen 14:18, Hugo de S. Victore⁵, Exod./Sap./Ioan.⁶, manus secunda⁷ = cod. E, Hebr. 7⁸…) and are claimed here as [^1]–[^7]. There is no p. 184 footer anchored in this body — p. 184's notes belong to ARTICULUS II (a2-q1).
- **Scholion disposition:** `has_scholion: false`. This question carries no question-level scholion of its own. Footer n.9 ([^7]) explicitly cross-refers "Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest." — i.e. the ARTICULUS I scholion already rendered in full in a1-q1; it is not re-rendered here. No distinct q3-keyed scholion section exists in the range.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All OCR garbles in the range (`quaerilur`, `maunae`, `econtra`, `iudaizare`, `Sirabum`-class footer noise) were unambiguously resolved against the p. 183 PDF bands.
</content>
</invoke>

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. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 184 -->

### Articulus II. *De institutione Sacramenti eucharistiae.*

Quantum ad secundum articulum consequenter quaeritur de institutione Sacramenti eucharistiae. Et circa hoc tria quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur, utrum a principio debuerit institui.

Secundo, supposito quod in lege Evangelii, quaeritur, quando: utrum ante passionem, an post.

Tertio quaeritur de modo et ordine instituendi.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit institui a principio.*

Et quod a principio debuerit institui, videtur:

1. Quia hoc Sacramentum est viaticum, quia praebet alimentum itineranti[^1]: ergo tunc institui debuit, quando homines itinerare coeperunt ad patriam; sed hoc statim fuit post lapsum: ergo etc.

2. Item, hoc Sacramentum est Sacramentum unionis corporis Christi mystici[^2]: ergo tunc debuit institui, quando fuit corpus mysticum; sed hoc fuit a principio: ergo etc.

3. Item, Sacramentum matrimonii non cessavit propter lapsum, immo quod erat in officium factum est in remedium; sed esus ligni vitae datus erat homini, ut dicit Augustinus[^3], in Sacramentum: ergo non debuit cessare, quin sacramentaliter ederet. Sed non debuit lignum comedere quod daret vitam corporalem, quia morti corporali obligatus erat: ergo lignum vitae, quod daret vitam spiritualem; sed hoc est eucharistia: ergo etc.

4. Item, sicut poenitentia est contra mortale, ita eucharistia contra venialia[^4]; sed ab initio currit veniale peccatum, ut mortale: ergo pari ratione eucharistia cum poenitentia.

**Contra:** 1. Hoc Sacramentum est maxime gratiae contentivum, unde et ab hoc nomen accepit[^5]: ergo tantum tempore legis gratiae debuit institui.

2. Item, hoc Sacramentum est contentivum secundum veritatem corporis Christi, quod traxit de Virgine[^6]: ergo non potuit esse, antequam esset hoc corpus: ergo tantum in novo testamento.

> **Conclusio.** Eucharistiae Sacramentum tantum statui gratiae congruit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc Sacramentum congruebat legi tantum gratiae, tum propter rem contentam, quae est corpus Christi verum, tum propter efficaciam, quae est caritatis vinculum, quae in nova lege apparere et abundare debuit, in anterioribus autem imperfecte possideri; ut ita gradus sit in mundo, sicut in uno homine[^7].

*Ad 1.* Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de viatico, dicendum, quod non valet: quia aliquod debuerunt habere sustentaculum, non perfectum cibum; et ita aliquam figuram, non rem ipsam.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est signum corporis mystici; dicendum, quod non tantum est signum eius, immo corporis Christi veri, et illius est signum immediatius; et ideo, quamvis corpus Christi mysticum coeperit ab Abel[^8], non tamen corpus Christi proprium, ideo nec hoc Sacramentum.

*Ad 3.* Ad tertium dicendum, quod matrimonium quantum ad officium omni statui conveniebat, quantum autem ad remedium non. Esus autem corporalis illius ligni conveniebat statui immortalitatis, esus istius ligni spiritualis omni statui, sed sacramentalis post istius ligni nativitatem et fructum.

<!-- page 185 -->

*Ad 4.* Est enim eius manducatio secundum etiam assumtam humanitatem, quam exposuit pro nobis in pretium et nunc exponit in cibum, Ioannis sexto[^9]: *Panis, quem ego dabo, caro mea est pro mundi vita.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de eucharistia, quod est remedium contra venialia; dicendum, quod tripliciter deficit ista ratio: primo, quia morbus venialis non est ita periculosus, ut mortalis; secundo vero, quia per poenitentiam veniale poterat habere remedium, ut mortale; tertio, quia illud Sacramentum non est principaliter contra venialia ordinatum, ut infra videbitur.

english:
### Article II. *On the institution of the Sacrament of the eucharist.*

As to the second article, the question that follows concerns the institution of the Sacrament of the eucharist. And about this three things are asked.

First it is asked whether it ought to have been instituted from the beginning.

Second, granting that it was [instituted] in the law of the Gospel, it is asked when: whether before the passion, or after.

Third it is asked about the manner and order of instituting it.

### Question I. *Whether the Sacrament of the eucharist ought to have been instituted from the beginning.*

That it ought to have been instituted from the beginning, it seems:

1. Because this Sacrament is a viaticum, since it furnishes nourishment to one journeying[^1]: therefore it ought to have been instituted then, when men began to journey toward the homeland; but this happened immediately after the fall: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, this Sacrament is the Sacrament of the union of Christ's mystical body[^2]: therefore it ought to have been instituted then, when the mystical body existed; but this was from the beginning: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the Sacrament of matrimony did not cease on account of the fall, but rather what had been [established] as a duty became a remedy; but the eating of the tree of life was given to man, as Augustine says[^3], as a Sacrament: therefore it ought not to have ceased, but that he should eat sacramentally. But he ought not to eat a tree that would give bodily life, since he was bound to bodily death: therefore [he ought to eat] the tree of life that would give spiritual life; but this is the eucharist: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, just as penance is against mortal [sin], so the eucharist is against venial [sins][^4]; but from the beginning venial sin has run its course, as has mortal: therefore by parity of reasoning the eucharist [should be] together with penance.

**On the contrary:** 1. This Sacrament is in the highest degree the container of grace, whence also it takes its name[^5]: therefore it ought to have been instituted only in the time of the law of grace.

2. Likewise, this Sacrament is the container, according to truth, of the body of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin[^6]: therefore it could not have existed before this body existed: therefore [it belongs] only to the new testament.

> **Conclusion.** The Sacrament of the eucharist befits only the state of grace.

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament befitted only the law of grace, both on account of the thing contained, which is the true body of Christ, and on account of its efficacy, which is the bond of charity, which in the new law had to appear and abound, but in earlier [times] to be possessed imperfectly; so that there might be a gradation in the world, just as in a single man[^7].

*To the first.* To that, then, which is objected concerning the viaticum, it must be said that it does not hold: because [men] needed to have some sustenance, not perfect food; and so some figure, not the thing itself.

*To the second.* To that which is objected, that it is the sign of the mystical body; it must be said that it is not only the sign of it, but rather of the true body of Christ, and it is the sign of that more immediately; and therefore, although the mystical body of Christ began from Abel[^8], yet the proper body of Christ did not, and therefore neither did this Sacrament.

*To the third.* To the third it must be said that matrimony, as to its duty, was fitting for every state, but as to its remedy not. But the bodily eating of that tree was fitting for the state of immortality, the spiritual eating of this tree for every state, but the sacramental [eating] after the nativity and fruit of this tree.

<!-- page 185 -->

*To the fourth.* For the eating of it is also according to the assumed humanity, which he laid down for us as a price and now lays down as food, in John the sixth[^9]: *The bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.* To that which is objected concerning the eucharist, that it is a remedy against venial [sins]; it must be said that this reasoning fails in three ways: first, because venial sickness is not as dangerous as mortal; second indeed, because through penance venial [sin] could have a remedy, as could mortal; third, because that Sacrament is not principally ordained against venial [sins], as will be seen below.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2, et infra dub. 3.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 2, and below dub. 3.

la: Ut exponitur infra p. II. huius dist. a. 2. q. 1. — Edd. *corporis Christi veri et mystici.*

en: As is explained below in p. II of this distinction, a. 2, q. 1. — The editions [read] *of the true and mystical body of Christ.*

la: Libr. VIII. de Gen. ad lit. c. 4. n. 8: *Erat ei ergo in lignis ceteris alimentum, in illo autem Sacramentum.* Cfr. ibid. XI. c. 32. n. 42. et c. 40. n. 54; XIII. de Civ. Dei c. 20, et VI. Oper. imperf. contra Iulian. c. 30. Explicationem huius sententiae vide II. Sent. d. 19. dub. 4. — De *maiori*, in qua post *erat* cod. O addit *prius*, cfr. infra d. 26. a. 1. q. 1. — Pro *sed esus* edd. *et etiam esus.*

en: Bk. VIII, On Genesis literally, c. 4, n. 8: "There was therefore for him nourishment in the other trees, but in that one a Sacrament." Cf. ibid. XI, c. 32, n. 42, and c. 40, n. 54; XIII, On the City of God, c. 20, and VI, Unfinished Work against Julian, c. 30. For the explanation of this sentence see II Sent., d. 19, dub. 4. — On the *major* [premise], in which after *erat* codex O adds *prius*, cf. below d. 26, a. 1, q. 1. — For *sed esus* the editions [read] *et etiam esus.*

la: Cfr. infra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. — Cod. P et ed. I *veniale.*

en: Cf. below d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3. — Codex P and ed. I [read] *veniale.*

la: Vide infra dub. 2. — Post *unde* ex codd. F G I L supplevimus *et.*

en: See below dub. 2. — After *unde* we have supplied *et* from codices F G I L.

la: Cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. below d. 10, p. I, q. 1 and following.

la: Vide supra pag. 31, nota 4.

en: See above p. 31, note 4.

la: Cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 2. m. 4. a. 1, ubi asserit, quod Ecclesia non ab Adam coepit, sed ab Abel, utpote quia de eius fide tanquam de sacro signo ex parte hominis primo in Scriptura (Gen. 4, 4.) legatur, quin semper sanctus exstiterit, nec non tres status Ecclesiae, scil. martyrum, virginum et pastorum seu fidei doctorum in se gesserit. Vide I. de Mirabilibus sacrae Script. (inter opera August.) c. 3, ubi verba Christi Matth. 23, 35: *A sanguine Abel iusti* etc., ita exponuntur: *Tota enim iustitia haec est: virginitas, sacerdotium et martyrium. Quae triplex iustitia in Abel primo fuit*, qui et munera Deo placita obtulit, prosapiam generis in saeculo non reliquit et martyrii coronam sanguinis effusione promeruit. Cfr. etiam August., Enarrat. in Ps. 61. n. 6. seqq., et XV. de Civ. Dei, c. 1. n. 2. — Superius post *immo* codd. H L addunt *etiam.*

en: Cf. Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 2, m. 4, a. 1, where he asserts that the Church began not from Adam but from Abel, inasmuch as from his faith, as from a sacred sign on man's part, it is first read in Scripture (Gen. 4, 4) that he was ever holy, and that he bore in himself the three states of the Church, namely of martyrs, virgins, and pastors or teachers of the faith. See I, On the Marvels of Sacred Scripture (among the works of Augustine) c. 3, where the words of Christ in Matt. 23, 35: "From the blood of righteous Abel" etc. are thus explained: "For this is the whole of righteousness: virginity, priesthood, and martyrdom. Which threefold righteousness was in Abel first," who both offered gifts pleasing to God, left no lineage of offspring in the world, and earned the crown of martyrdom by the shedding of his blood. Cf. also Augustine, Expositions on the Psalms, Ps. 61, n. 6 and following, and XV, On the City of God, c. 1, n. 2. — Above, after *immo*, codices H L add *etiam.*

la: Vers. 52. — Superius multi codd. omittunt *corporalis*, et pro *et fructum* cod. bb *vel fructum*, aliquot codd. *vel ut fructum* vel *ut finitum*, Vat. *ut finitum vel fructus.*

en: [John 6] v. 52. — Above, many codices omit *corporalis*, and for *et fructum* codex bb [reads] *vel fructum*, several codices *vel ut fructum* or *ut finitum*, the Vatican [edition] *ut finitum vel fructus.* ---

latin_scholion:
**I.** De convenientia institutionis ipsius Sacramenti eucharistiae pro more sapientissime auctor noster loquitur in Breviloq. p. VI. c. 9; cfr. hic dub. 2, infra d. 12. p. II. passim. — De congruentia temporis institutionis agitur hic q. I. et 2, approbantibus aliis Scholasticis.

De 1. et 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 2. a. 1. § 1. 2. 3. — Scot., in utroque Scripto hic q. I. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2. 3; S. III. q. 73. a. 5. — B. Albert., hic a. 5. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

**II.** Quoad 3. quaestionem sententia, quam S. Bonav. cum S. Thoma et Scoto probabiliorem esse censet, post Concilium Trid. (cfr. Sess. 13. c. 1.) communiter tanquam certa tenetur, licet idem Concilium ab eadem definienda abstinuerit.

De eadem: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 2. § 2. — Scot., hic q. 2. n. 11. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1; S. III. q. 78. a. 1. ad 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 6. quaestiunc. 6. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. ad 5. — Durand., hic q. 2. circa finem. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** On the fittingness of the institution of the Sacrament of the eucharist itself, our author speaks, after his manner, most wisely in the Breviloquium, p. VI, c. 9; cf. here dub. 2, [and] below d. 12, p. II, passim. — On the fittingness of the time of the institution it is treated here in q. I and 2, with the other Scholastics in agreement.

On the 1st and 2nd question: Alex. of Hales, Summa p. IV, q. 10, m. 2, a. 1, § 1, 2, 3. — Scotus, in both Writings here q. I. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 3, quaestiunc. 2, 3; Summa III, q. 73, a. 5. — Bl. Albert, here a. 5. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 4, quaestiunc. 2, 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 1, q. 1. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

**II.** As to the 3rd question, the opinion which St. Bonaventure, with St. Thomas and Scotus, judges more probable, after the Council of Trent (cf. Sess. 13, c. 1) is commonly held as certain, although the same Council abstained from defining it.

On the same: Alex. of Hales, loc. cit., m. 4, a. 2, § 2. — Scotus, here q. 2, n. 11. — St. Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1, quaestiunc. 1; Summa III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 1. — Bl. Albert, here a. 6, quaestiunc. 6. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 1. — Richard of Middleton, here a. 3, q. 1, ad 5. — Durandus, here q. 2, near the end. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 20919–21056, with the Vol IV PDF column-bands (pp. 184–185, colcrop split x≈2050/1880, offset pdf = printed + 20) treated as authoritative for the Respondeo, Solutiones (Ad 1–4), the joint scholion, and all page footers, where the two-column OCR cascade-shatters. ARTICULUS II opener "Quantum ad secundum articulum … circa hoc tria quaeruntur" folds into this q1 chunk per the locked chunking convention.

**Alignment confirmed.** ARTICULUS II, QUAESTIO I = *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit institui a principio* (the institution question; "from the beginning"). The article opener lists three questions (a principio / quando: ante an post passionem / modo et ordine). ART I q3 = raw L20839–20918 precedes (not mine); QUAESTIO II *ante passionem* = raw L21057+ follows (a2-q2, excluded).

**Page-split map.** Body opens and runs on printed p. 184 (videtur args 1–4, Contra 1–2, Conclusio, Respondeo, Ad 1–3). The tail of Ad 4 (the "Est enim eius manducatio … in coena paschali" passage) wraps to the top of p. 185, followed immediately by the joint SCHOLION. QUAESTIO II then opens lower on p. 185.

**Footer-ownership.** p. 184 footnotes 1–8 all anchor in this q1 body (1–6 = left-column videtur/Contra args; 7–8 = right-column Respondeo/Ad 2). p. 185 footnote 1 ("Vers. 52" = Jn 6:52, anchoring Ad 4's "Ioannis sexto") belongs to this q1 and is rendered as [^9]; p. 185 footnotes 2–5 anchor QUAESTIO II's body and are left to **a2-q2**. The ART I q3 footers (raw ~L20905–20918) are left to **a1-q3** (the prior chunk).

**Scholion disposition.** ART II carries a single JOINT scholion. Point I covers the 1st and 2nd questions (this q1 + a2-q2's "convenientia/congruentia temporis"); point II covers the 3rd question. Per the brief, the whole joint scholion is rendered HERE in a2-q1; **a2-q2 renders no scholion**. `has_scholion: true`.

**[?] flags.** None. All anchors and footers resolved against the PDF column bands; OCR garbles (e.g. *del>uit*, *iramortalitatis*, *qiian-tum*, *Saeramentum*, scholion citation digits) corrected unambiguously against the printed page.


title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 185 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit institui ante passionem.*

Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, quando debuerit institui, et quod ante passionem, videtur:

1. Quia hoc Sacramentum est relictum a Domino in viaticum, ergo tunc debuit institui, quando Dominus fuit viator. Si dicas, quod non sequitur, quia non dicitur viaticum, quia a viatore, sed quia detur viatori; obiicitur tunc, quod ipse Dominus non tantum formam instituendo, sed etiam exemplum praebendo dedit[^1].

2. Item, videtur, quod iuxta passionem: quia hoc Sacramentum datum est in signum amoris; sed Dominus in fine ostendit specialia signa amoris ad discipulorum consolationem, Ioannis decimo tertio[^2]: *Cum dilexisset suos, in finem* etc.

3. Item, hoc Sacramentum est cibus reficiens[^3]: ergo si tempus institutioni, et institutio debet esse concors effectui: videtur, quod debuerit institui in hora Coenae.

4. Item, hoc Sacramentum impletivum erat eius quod praefiguratum erat in agno paschali[^4]: ergo si veritas debuit supponi umbrae, videtur, quod debuit institui post esum agni, et ita in coena paschali.

**Contra:**

1. Christus conficiendo dedit formam conficiendi[^5], ergo dando dedit formam dandi vel communicandi; sed post Coenam non est tempus conveniens sumendi: ergo videtur, quod Dominus inordinate dederit. Hoc autem est inconveniens: ergo tunc non dedit.

2. Item, hoc Sacramentum sequitur baptismum, ergo debuit institui post baptismum; sed baptismus institutus est post resurrectionem, Matthaei ultimo[^6]: ergo etc.

3. Item, in hoc Sacramento continetur Christus sacramentaliter, ut qui non est nobiscum sensibiliter saltem sit sacramentaliter; et in ascensione recessit a discipulis corporaliter[^7]: ergo tunc debuit instituere hoc Sacramentum.

4. Item, hoc ipsum videtur, quia est signum memoriale; sed talia melius memoriae imprimuntur, cum ultimo exhibentur, sicut dicit Augustinus in quadam homilia[^8]: ergo inter omnia quae fecit, istud debuit esse ultimum. Sed multa fecit coram discipulis post resurrectionem: ergo hoc Sacramentum debuit post omnia instituere.

<!-- page 186 -->

### Conclusio

> *Eucharistiae Sacramentum congruenter in ultima Coena paschali institui debuit.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod Sacramentum illud, cum sit visibile, continet corpus Christi verum, et vere est ibi cibus et praecipuum signum amoris[^9]: cibus, inquam, *reficiens*, et ideo tempore refectionis instituit; cibus etiam paschalis, et ideo in paschali Coena. Quia vero erat signum amoris; et in recessu debet homo ostendere amoris signa et memoriale, ut arctius in memoria maneat: ideo in ultima Coena.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod si tunc institutum est, tunc deberemus illo uti; dicendum, quod hora illa conveniens fuit primae institutioni; sed usui nostro non convenit, quia institutio respicit effectum Sacramenti[^10], sed usus ulterius idoneitatem suscipientis; et quia homo satur non est idoneus ad spiritualia peragenda: ideo non servat hoc Ecclesia nec debet servare. Si obiicias, quod tunc Apostoli primo indebite acceperunt; dicendum, quod ipsi sobrie comederant exemplo Magistri; et iterum, comederant cibum paschalem, qui erat quodam modo spiritualis propter significantiam[^11].

2. Ad aliud de baptismo dicendum, quod non est credibile, quod tunc esset forma instituta, sed quod alias instituit ibi confirmavit et publicavit. Similiter subdidit de hoc Sacramento: *Ecce ego vobiscum sum*[^12] etc.

3. Ad aliud de recessu dicendum, quod Christus recessit in passione, unde ille fuit transitus et via; et[^13] transitus ille fuit ad nostram salutem, ideo tunc instituit cibum paschalem; sed in ascensione fuit ad suam gloriam.

4. Ad aliud de memoria dicendum, quod ante passionem fuit cum eis ut socius; et ideo tunc reliquit signa amoris; sed post resurrectionem fuit ut dominus et quasi extraneus; unde dicebat[^14]: *Hoc est quod dicebam, cum adhuc essem vobiscum*; et ideo recessus ille debuit explicare signum et Sacramentum amoris.

---

english:
### Question II. *Whether the Sacrament of the eucharist ought to have been instituted before the Passion.*

Secondly, it is asked concerning this, when it ought to have been instituted; and that it ought to have been before the Passion seems [to be the case]:

1. Because this Sacrament was left by the Lord as viaticum, therefore it ought to have been instituted then, when the Lord was a wayfarer. If you say that this does not follow, since it is not called viaticum because [it comes] from a wayfarer, but because it is given to a wayfarer; the objection then is that the Lord himself gave it not only by instituting the form, but also by furnishing the example[^1].

2. Likewise, it seems [it ought to have been] near the Passion: because this Sacrament was given as a sign of love; but the Lord at the end showed special signs of love for the consolation of the disciples, John the thirteenth[^2]: *When he had loved his own, [he loved them] unto the end,* etc.

3. Likewise, this Sacrament is a refreshing food[^3]: therefore if [we consider] the time for institution, the institution too ought to be in accord with the effect: it seems that it ought to have been instituted at the hour of the Supper.

4. Likewise, this Sacrament was the fulfillment of that which was prefigured in the paschal lamb[^4]: therefore if the truth ought to be set under the shadow, it seems it ought to have been instituted after the eating of the lamb, and thus at the paschal supper.

**On the contrary:**

1. Christ by consecrating gave the form of consecrating[^5], therefore by giving he gave the form of giving or of communicating; but after the Supper is not a fitting time for receiving: therefore it seems that the Lord gave it inordinately. But this is unfitting: therefore he did not give it then.

2. Likewise, this Sacrament follows baptism, therefore it ought to have been instituted after baptism; but baptism was instituted after the resurrection, Matthew the last [chapter][^6]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, in this Sacrament Christ is contained sacramentally, so that he who is not with us sensibly may at least be [with us] sacramentally; and at the ascension he withdrew from the disciples bodily[^7]: therefore then he ought to have instituted this Sacrament.

4. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow], because it is a memorial sign; but such things are better impressed on the memory when they are exhibited last, as Augustine says in a certain homily[^8]: therefore among all the things he did, this ought to have been the last. But he did many things before the disciples after the resurrection: therefore this Sacrament ought to have been instituted after all [of them].

### Conclusion

> *The Sacrament of the eucharist was fittingly instituted at the last paschal Supper.*

**I respond:** It must be said that that Sacrament, since it is visible, contains the true body of Christ, and there is truly there a food and the chief sign of love[^9]: a *refreshing* food, I say, and therefore he instituted it at the time of refreshment; a paschal food too, and therefore at the paschal Supper. But because it was a sign of love; and at [one's] departure a man ought to show signs of love and a memorial, so that it may abide more firmly in the memory: therefore [he instituted it] at the last Supper.

1. To that which is objected, that if it was instituted then, then we ought to use it [then]; it must be said that that hour was fitting for the first institution; but it does not suit our use, because institution regards the effect of the Sacrament[^10], whereas use [regards] further the suitableness of the recipient; and because a man who is sated is not suited for performing spiritual things: therefore the Church does not observe this nor ought it to observe it. If you object that the Apostles then received it for the first time unworthily; it must be said that they had eaten soberly by the Master's example; and again, they had eaten the paschal food, which was in a certain way spiritual on account of its signification[^11].

2. To the other [argument] about baptism it must be said that it is not credible that the form was instituted then, but that what he had instituted elsewhere he there confirmed and made public. Similarly he added concerning this Sacrament: *Behold, I am with you*[^12] etc.

3. To the other [argument] about the withdrawal it must be said that Christ withdrew in the Passion, whence that was a passing-over and a way; and[^13] that passing-over was unto our salvation, [and] therefore then he instituted the paschal food; but at the ascension it was unto his own glory.

4. To the other [argument] about memory it must be said that before the Passion he was with them as a companion; and therefore then he left signs of love; but after the resurrection he was as a lord and as it were a stranger; whence he was saying[^14]: *This is what I was saying, when I was still with you*; and therefore that withdrawal ought to have unfolded the sign and Sacrament of love.

---

en: Distinction 12, part II, article I, question 3.

la: Vers. 1: *Cum dilexisset suos qui erant in mundo, in finem dilexit eos.*

en: Verse 1 [John 13]: *When he had loved his own who were in the world, he loved them unto the end.*

la: Ambros., VIII. in Luc. 17, 3-5. n. 51: *Iste ergo cibus refectionis, est cibus sanguinis* etc. Cfr. August., Serm. 131. (alias 2. de Verbis Apostoli) c. 1. n. 1.

en: Ambrose, on Luke, book VIII [on] 17, 3-5, n. 51: *This food of refreshment, then, is the food of the blood,* etc. Cf. Augustine, Sermon 131 (otherwise 2nd, On the Words of the Apostle), c. 1, n. 1.

la: Vide Bedam, VI. in Luc. 22, 15. seqq.; Hug. a S. Vict., Quaest. in Epist. I. Cor. q. 86, et supra a. 1. q. 2. nec non hic lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: See Bede, on Luke, book VI [on] 22, 15 ff.; Hugh of St. Victor, *Questions on the First Epistle to the Corinthians*, q. 86, and above, article 1, question 2; and likewise here the text of the Master, c. 1.

la: Cfr. quaest. seq.

en: Cf. the following question.

la: Vers. 19.

en: Verse 19 [Matthew 28].

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 3.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 3.

la: Quaenam illa sit homilia, ignoramus; sententia haec invenitur in Epist. M. (alias 118.) c. 6. n. 8. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 5.

en: What that homily may be, we do not know; this opinion is found in Letter [54] (otherwise 118), c. 6, n. 8. See here the text of the Master, c. 5.

la: Plurimi codd. omittunt *amoris*. Mox pro *instituit* cod. U melius *institutum*, Vat. *institui debuit*.

en: Very many codices omit *amoris* [of love]. Soon, for *instituit* [he instituted], codex U better [reads] *institutum* [instituted], the Vatican edition *institui debuit* [ought to have been instituted].

la: Cod. P (D a secunda manu) addit *vel unionem*, cod. E *vel potentiam*, cod. bb et Vat. *sive* [Vat. *vel*] *quod efficit*.

en: Codex P (D by a second hand) adds *vel unionem* [or the union], codex E *vel potentiam* [or the power], codices bb and the Vatican edition *sive* [Vat. *vel*] *quod efficit* [or that which it effects].

la: Matth. 28, 20. Vide supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. I. in fine. — Superius pro *esset* cod. H *fuerit*.

en: Matthew 28:20. See above, distinction 3, part II, article 1, question I, at the end. — Above, for *esset* [might be], codex H [reads] *fuerit* [was].

la: Cod. H *et quia*. Pro *via* cod. H *in via*, cod. M *ad vitam*, Vat. *ex via*. — Alex. Hal., 4. p. IV. q. 10. m. 2. a. I. — § 3: Recessus Domini in passione fuit transitus ad humanam salutem, in quantum homo erat viator; propter quod conveniebat, quod tunc institueretur cibus paschalis; in ascensione non fuit sic, sed transitus ad gloriam.

en: Codex H [reads] *et quia* [and because]. For *via* [way], codex H [reads] *in via* [in the way], codex M *ad vitam* [unto life], the Vatican edition *ex via* [out of the way]. — Alexander of Hales, [Summa] part IV, q. 10, member 2, article I. — On § 3: The Lord's withdrawal in the Passion was a passing-over unto human salvation, insofar as he was a wayfarer as man; on account of which it was fitting that the paschal food be instituted then; at the ascension it was not so, but [was] a passing-over unto glory.

la: Luc. 24, 44: *Haec sunt verba, quae locutus sum ad vos, cum adhuc essem vobiscum.*

en: Luke 24:44: *These are the words which I spoke to you, while I was still with you.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR raw lines 21057–21191 (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`), with the PDF column-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p185-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, `vol4-p186-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; pdf = printed + 20) treated as authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio and footer apparatus per the Vol II/IV override. Alignment confirmed: header `QUAESTIO II.` (L21057), title *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit institui ante passionem* (L21059), opener *Secundo quaeritur circa hoc, quando debuerit institui, et quod ante passionem* — matches Art. II q2. The next header `QUAESTIO III.` begins at L21193, so this quaestio's body ends at L21191 (the prompt's stated upper bound L21302 over-includes q3 and its footers, which belong to a2-q3; the DUBIA running head at L21303+ belongs to the dubia).

**Page-split map.** The quaestio spans two printed pages. p.185 (left col tail of q1 + joint scholion, then) holds the q2 header, title, four *Fundamenta* arguments, and the four *Contra* arguments. The running head `186 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` falls at OCR L21119; everything from the Conclusio onward (Conclusio, Respondeo, the four Solutio replies) is on p.186. Page break placed before the `### Conclusio` block.

**Footer-ownership.** Quaracchi restarts numbering each page; markers renumbered continuously here.
- *p.185 footer sequence (10 notes):* notes 1 (Vers. 52 / *corporalis* variant) and 3 (Cfr. infra dub. 3 et d. 9; *quod ipse* / *quia ipse*) anchor in q1's tail and are owned by **a2-q1**. Notes 2, 4, 5, 6 anchor in the q2 Fundamenta (→ this chunk's [^1]–[^4]); notes 7, 8, 9, 10 anchor in the q2 Contra (→ [^5]–[^8]).
- *p.186 footer sequence (10 notes):* notes 1–6 anchor in the q2 Respondeo/Solutio (→ this chunk's [^9]–[^14]); notes 7 (Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.), 8 (Vers. 26), 9 (1 Cor. 10, 16; Chrysost./Bruno/Ambros.), 10 (Cfr. infra d. 10 p. I. q. 5) anchor in the q3 opener and are owned by **a2-q3**.
- The Quaracchi editorial gloss keyed to Solutio "§ 3" (*Recessus Domini in passione fuit transitus...*) is folded into [^13], the note on that very reply.

This chunk therefore carries **14 footnotes** (8 from p.185, 6 from p.186).

**Scholion disposition.** The Article II scholion is a JOINT block ("De 1. et 2. quaestione" — visible at p.185-L-0 / L-1) and is rendered in **d8-p1-a2-q1**. None is rendered here; `has_scholion: false`.

**[?] flags.** None. Footnote sources verified against the column-band footers; the few OCR garbles ([^3] *cibus refectionis* / Serm. 131; [^8] homily attribution; [^13] codex variants) are confirmed legible in the PDF bands. The Alexander of Hales locus in [^13] ("4. p. IV.") is faithfully reproduced from the OCR ("?. p. IV.") with the part number read from the band as `4.`.


title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 3

title_alt: Utrum Dominus eucharistiae Sacramentum prius confecerit quam verbum protulerit

source_text:
<!-- page 186 -->

### Quaestio III. *Utrum Dominus eucharistiae Sacramentum prius confecerit, quam verbum protulerit.*

Tertio quaeritur de modo instituendi Sacramentum eucharistiae. Et cum institutio huius Sacramenti fuerit in institutione verbi, quaeritur, utrum prius confecerit, quam verbum protulerit. Et quod sic, ostenditur:

1. Ex textu Evangelii. Matthaei vigesimo sexto[^1] scribitur: *Coenantibus illis, accepit Iesus panem et benedixit ac fregit ac dedit discipulis suis dicens: Accipite* etc.; et post: *Hoc est corpus meum.* Ex hoc verbo duplex elicitur ratio: prima, quia *prius benedixit*, quam verbum proferret; sed benedictio fuit consecratio[^2]: ergo prius benedixit et consecravit, quam verbum proferret.

2. Item, arguitur ex alio verbo: quia *prius fregit*, quam verbum proferret; sed fractio consequitur confectionem in hoc Sacramento, sicut patet[^3]: ergo prius confecit, quam proferret verba: ergo non instituit verba conficiendo.

**Sed contra:** 1. Si verba non protulit conficiendo, aut confecit *aliis verbis*, aut *sine verbo*. Si confecit *aliis verbis*: ergo illa maxime debent habere virtutem; si *sine verbo*: ergo videtur, quod Ecclesia non imitetur summum magistrum in conficiendo; quod videtur inconveniens, cum in isto Sacramento praecipue summus sacerdos formam et exemplar dederit consecrandi.

2. Item, si non confecit his verbis, ergo verba in ore Christi fuerunt tantum significativa, ergo non habuerunt virtutem neque efficaciam: si tunc non habuerunt, videtur ergo, quod nunquam habeant, quia non habent nunc, nisi propter illud quod factum est tunc.

<!-- page 187 -->

### Conclusio. *Dominus conficiendo verba formae instituit et proferendo verba confecit.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod circa hoc sunt tres opiniones satis probabiles.

Prima est, quod Dominus prius confecit, quam verbum instituerit, sicut prius baptizatus est, quam formam baptismi institueret. Et ratio eorum est, quia ipse, qui est Verbum Patris, confecit se ipso sine verbo: nobis autem, qui indigemus virtute Verbi, dedit formam post consecrationem.

Alia opinio est, quod Dominus confecit simul et verba protulit, sed bis protulit: primo in *occulto* ad conficiendum, secundo in *aperto* ad formam institutam manifestandam. Primum quidem intelligitur fecisse, cum dicitur: *Benedixit et fregit*; et exponunt: *Benedixit*, scilicet occulte dicendo: *Hoc est corpus meum*; et post *fregit* et distribuendo dixit aperte illud verbum: *Hoc est corpus meum*.

Tertia opinio est, quod Dominus simul confecit et verbum instituit; et sicut semel tantum confecit, ita semel tantum verba protulit; et illud videtur convenientius. Ad quid enim toties verba proferret, cum bene posset facere semel proferendo? Ulterius, quamvis posset[^4] conficere sine verbo, debuit tamen conficere verbum dicendo, ut Apostolis formam traderet; quia Dominus non tantum ibi suam potentiam ostendebat, sed etiam discipulos informabat. — Et haec positio est communior et probabilior. Hanc sustinendo, dicendum est, quod Dominus conficiendo verba instituit, quia verba proferendo post confecit[^5].

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod prius benedixit; dicendum quod benedictio illa non fuit consecratio, sed fuit quaedam praeparatio vel magis quaedam orationis sive gratiarum actionis praemissio, in qua ostendit, nobis nullum cibum attrectandum, nisi praevia benedictione. Unde mos est ecclesiasticorum virorum ad omnem cibum praemittere benedictionem[^6].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fractione, dicendum, quod duplici de causa potest esse fractio: vel ad *figurandum*, vel ad *distribuendum*; ad *figurandum*, sicut sacerdos frangit in altari, et haec sequitur confectionem. Alia vero est ad *distribuendum*, et sic, si aliquis conficeret pro multis, ita quod haberet unum panem, non hostias distinctas, congrue posset prius frangere. Et sic fecit Dominus; unde fregit, ut inter discipulos distribueret[^7].

---

english:
<!-- page 186 -->

### Question III. *Whether the Lord confected the Sacrament of the eucharist before he uttered the word.*

Third, it is asked concerning the manner of instituting the Sacrament of the eucharist. And since the institution of this Sacrament was in the institution of the word, it is asked whether he confected before he uttered the word. And that he did so is shown:

1. From the text of the Gospel. In Matthew twenty-six[^1] it is written: *While they were supping, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke and gave to his disciples, saying: Take* etc.; and afterward: *This is my body.* From this text a twofold reason is drawn: first, that *he first blessed* before he uttered the word; but the blessing was the consecration[^2]: therefore he first blessed and consecrated before he uttered the word.

2. Likewise, it is argued from another text: that *he first broke* before he uttered the word; but the breaking follows the confection in this Sacrament, as is evident[^3]: therefore he confected before he uttered the words: therefore he did not institute the words by confecting.

**On the contrary:** 1. If he did not utter the words in confecting, then either he confected *with other words*, or *without a word*. If he confected *with other words*: then those words ought above all to have power; if *without a word*: then it seems that the Church does not imitate the highest master in confecting; which seems unfitting, since in this Sacrament especially the highest priest gave the form and the exemplar of consecrating.

2. Likewise, if he did not confect with these words, then the words in Christ's mouth were merely significative, therefore they did not have power nor efficacy: if they did not have it then, it seems therefore that they never have it, since they do not have it now except on account of that which was done then.

<!-- page 187 -->

### Conclusion. *The Lord, by confecting, instituted the words of the form, and by uttering the words he confected.*

**I respond:** It must be said that concerning this there are three opinions sufficiently probable.

The first is that the Lord confected before he instituted the word, just as he was baptized before he instituted the form of baptism. And their reason is that he himself, who is the Word of the Father, confected by himself without a word: but to us, who lack the power of the Word, he gave the form after the consecration.

Another opinion is that the Lord confected and at the same time uttered the words, but he uttered them twice: first in *secret* for confecting, second *openly* for manifesting the form that was instituted. The first he is understood to have done when it is said: *He blessed and broke*; and they expound: *He blessed*, namely by saying secretly: *This is my body*; and afterward *he broke* and, distributing, he said openly that word: *This is my body*.

The third opinion is that the Lord at the same time confected and instituted the word; and just as he confected only once, so he uttered the words only once; and this seems more fitting. For to what purpose would he utter the words so many times, when he could well do it by uttering once? Furthermore, although he could[^4] confect without a word, he nevertheless had to confect by saying the word, in order to hand on the form to the Apostles; for the Lord there was not only displaying his power, but also instructing his disciples. — And this position is the more common and more probable. Holding to this, it must be said that the Lord, by confecting, instituted the words, because by uttering the words he afterward confected[^5].

1. To that, then, which is objected, that he first blessed; it must be said that that blessing was not the consecration, but was a certain preparation or rather a certain prefacing of prayer or of thanksgiving, in which he showed that no food is to be handled by us except with a blessing going before. Hence it is the custom of churchmen to put a blessing before every meal[^6].

2. To that which is objected concerning the breaking, it must be said that for a twofold cause there can be a breaking: either for *signifying*, or for *distributing*; for *signifying*, as the priest breaks at the altar, and this follows the confection. But the other is for *distributing*, and thus, if someone were to confect for many, so that he had one bread, not separate hosts, he could fittingly break first. And thus the Lord did; hence he broke, that he might distribute among the disciples[^7].

---

la: Vers. 26: *Coenantibus autem eis, accepit... deditque discipulis suis et ait: Accipite et comedite: hoc est corpus meum.*

en: Verse 26: *While they were supping, he took... and gave to his disciples and said: Take and eat: this is my body.*

la: Communiter allegatur 1. Cor. 10, 16: *Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus* etc. Cfr. Chrysost., S. Remigius (cuius Commentarii in ed. Migne Haymoni attribuuntur), S. Bruno in hunc loc., nec non Ambros. *de Mysteriis*, c. 9. n. 50. Vide etiam C. *Ante benedictionem* (40.) et C. *Non omnis panis* (61.), de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: It is commonly cited from 1 Cor. 10, 16: *The cup of blessing, which we bless* etc. Cf. Chrysostom, St. Remigius (whose Commentaries in the Migne edition are attributed to Haymo), St. Bruno on this passage, and also Ambrose, *On the Mysteries*, c. 9, n. 50. See also the Canon *Ante benedictionem* (40.) and the Canon *Non omnis panis* (61.), de Consecratione, d. 2.

la: Cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. q. 5, et Innocent. III, IV. *de Sacro altaris Mysterio*, c. 6.

en: Cf. below, d. 10, p. I, q. 5, and Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar*, Book IV, c. 6.

la: Codd. F G I U *quamvis bene posset*. Inferius pro *communior* cod. U *certior*.

en: Codices F G I U read *although he could well*. Below, for *communior* (more common), codex U reads *certior* (more certain).

la: Cfr. Damasc., IV. *de Fide orthod.* c. 13; C. *Quia corpus* (35.) § 1., de Consecrat. d. 2. et C. *Panis est* (55.), ibid. — Vat. omittit *post*, pro quo codd. L P *primo*.

en: Cf. John Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith*, Book IV, c. 13; the Canon *Quia corpus* (35.) § 1., de Consecratione, d. 2, and the Canon *Panis est* (55.), ibid. — The Vatican edition omits *post* (afterward), for which codices L P read *primo* (first).

la: Chrysost., in Matth. 14, 19. homil. 49. (alias 50.) n. 2: *Cur respexit in caelum et benedixit?... simul haec quae dixi probans, simulque erudiens nos, ne ante mensam attingamus, quam gratias egerimus ei qui nobis escam praebet.*

en: Chrysostom, on Matt. 14, 19, homily 49 (otherwise 50), n. 2: *Why did he look up to heaven and bless?... at once proving these things which I have said, and at the same time teaching us not to touch the table before we have given thanks to him who supplies us with food.*

la: Tertull., IV. *adversus Marcion.* c. 40: *Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum dicendo.* — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Tertullian, *Against Marcion*, Book IV, c. 40: *Taking bread and distributing it to the disciples, he made it his own body, by saying, This is my body.* — See the scholion at quaestion 1 of this article. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{186,187}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, colcrop split x=1880) per the Vol II/III/IV PDF-priority inversion in cascade-shattered regions; raw OCR base lines 21193–21302 used for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (printed 186–187 = pdf 206–207). Alignment confirmed: opener *Tertio quaeritur de modo instituendi* matches ART II q3; DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM begins at raw L21303 and is excluded.

**Page-split map.**
- p.186 (R column): Quaestio III opener, two *Ad oppositum* arguments, *Sed contra* (2 arguments). q2's tail occupies the whole L column and the top of the R column of p.186 (footnotes 1–7 there belong to q2, except 8–10 anchor in q3 — see below).
- p.187: Conclusio + Respondeo (three opiniones) on the L column, then Solutio oppositorum (replies 1–2) on the R column. q3 ends mid-R-column at *...inter discipulos distribueret*, immediately before DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI / DUB. I.

**Footer ownership (per body-anchor split).**
- Picked up from **p.186 right-column footer**: nn. 8, 9, 10 (renumbered here `[^1]`, `[^2]`, `[^3]`) — anchored at *Matthaei vigesimo sexto*, *benedictio fuit consecratio*, and *sicut patet*, all in the q3 *Ad oppositum* arguments.
- p.186 footnotes 1–6 (q2 body) and **footnote 7** (*Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*, anchored at q2's *Sacramentum amoris*, the line immediately before QUAESTIO III) are **left to `bon-sent-IV-d8-p1-a2-q2`**.
- Picked up from **p.187 footers**: L-column nn. 2, 3, 4 and R-column n. 5 — all anchored in q3's Respondeo/Solutio (*quamvis posset*, *post confecit*, *Ad 1 benedictionem*, *Ad 2 distribueret*). Mapping: p.187 n.2→`[^4]`, n.3→`[^5]`, n.4→`[^6]`, n.5→`[^7]`.
- Left to **DUBIA** (excluded): p.187 nn. 6, 7, 8 (Augustine *Confess.*, *Idem dub. solvit S. Thom.*, the Greek etymology of *eucharistia*) all anchor in DUB. I / DUB. II.

**One footer not rendered (deliberate):** p.187 **n.1** (Innocent III, *relatis illis opinionibus...* — the source-note enumerating the three opiniones) has no single discrete body anchor; it is the umbrella attribution for the whole *tres opiniones* Respondeo rather than a marker-bearing clause. To respect the parser's strict `[^N]`-marker-pairing rule (every def needs a matching inline anchor in both bodies) it is documented here in Notes rather than rendered as an orphan apparatus entry. The chunk therefore renders **7** apparatus entries (`[^1]`–`[^7]`) with 7 matching pairs of body anchors.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. No distinct q3 scholion exists; p.186 n.7 explicitly points to the scholion of the preceding quaestion, and p.187 n.5's tail (*Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.*) points to the joint article scholion already rendered in `bon-sent-IV-d8-p1-a2-q1`.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All eight footers and the body read cleanly from the PDF bands.