title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 201 -->

ARTICULUS I.

*De manducatione eucharistiae in generali.*

QUAESTIO I.

*De duplici modo manducandi eucharistiam.*

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic. Quod *duo* debeant esse modi manducandi, scilicet « sacramentalis et spiritualis », secundum quod Magister[^2] dicit, ostenditur:

1. Primo auctoritate canonis, Ioannis sexto[^3]: *Qui manducat me vivit propter me,* hic tangitur modus spiritualis; sed primae ad Corinthios undecimo: *Qui manducat indigne iudicium sibi manducat,* et hic tangitur alius modus, qui non est spiritualis: ergo manducatio corporis Christi multiplex est.

2. Item, auctoritate Augustini[^4]: « Spiritualiter manducat qui in unitate Christi et Ecclesiae, quam Sacramentum significat, manet »: « qui autem discordat a Christo nec carnem Christi manducat nec sanguinem bibit, etiam si tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudicium quotidie accipit ».

3. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur *ratione:* quia, cum duae sint tantum res huius Sacramenti[^5], et possibile sit, unam accipere sine alia: ergo sunt duo modi distincti.

4. Item, manducatio dicit usum Sacramenti; ergo cum hic sit Sacramentum interius et exterius, patet, quod sunt duae manducationes[^6].

Contra: 1. Videtur, quod non nisi *una:* quia « ubi unum propter alterum, ibi unum tantum »[^7]: ergo si sacramentalis est propter spiritualem, vel ad spiritualem, sicut signum ad signatum: ergo una tantum manducatio.

2. Item, *caro Christi vere est cibus*[^8], ergo sicut lucis est illuminare, ita carnis illius est cibare: sed non corporaliter, ergo spiritualiter; sed qui recipit sacramentaliter recipit carnem, et sic cibatur spiritualiter: ergo unus tantum est modus manducandi, scilicet spiritualis.

3. Item, ostenditur, quod sint plures modi: quia, sicut dicitur supra distinctione quarta[^9], quidam recipiunt in baptismo rem tantum, quidam Sacramentum tantum, quidam utrumque: ergo tres modi; eadem ergo ratione et hic sunt tres manducationes.

4. Item, triplex est unio[^10]: in natura, in fide et in caritate; sed unioni fidei respondet manducatio sacramentalis: ergo et unioni caritatis spiritualis: ergo erit tertius modus respondens unioni in natura.

5. Item, triplex est in nobis virtus theologica, et quaelibet suo modo unit: ergo cum aliquis modus manducandi respondeat fidei, aliquis caritati; aliquis respondebit spei.

CONCLUSIO.

*Eucharistia duplici modo manducatur, scilicet sacramentaliter et spiritualiter.*

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod duplex est modus manducandi. Cuius distinctio a triplici oritur principio, videlicet a *dispositione sumentium:* quia quidam accedunt male dispositi, et hi manducant sacramentaliter; quidam bene, et hi spiritualiter. — Ulterius oritur distinctio secundo a *modo sumendi:*

<!-- page 202 -->

quia quidam suscipiunt *ore corporis,* et hi sacramentaliter; quidam vero *ore cordis,* et hi spiritualiter: unde secundum duplex os duplex est manducatio[^11]. — Tertio oritur ab *ipso Sacramento:* quia duplicem habet rem, quarum una potest recipi sine altera; ita sicut duplex est baptismus, scilicet fluminis et flaminis a duplici re[^12], sic etiam duplex modus manducandi. — Et hoc ultimum est completum, quia una res potest sumi sine altera.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod *ubi unum propter alterum;* dicendum, quod hoc verum est, si sit ita unum propter alterum, quod non queat separari; sed cum separatur, iam non remanet unum[^1].

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod caro semper cibat; dicendum, quod actus ille semper respicit dispositionem suscipientis, sicut *illuminare;* unde sicut geminatur dispositio, sic et modus manducandi.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod tres sunt modi in baptismo, et sic etc.; dicendum, quod ille tertius modus non distinguitur nisi *materialiter* tantum ab aliis duobus.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de unione naturae, est dicendum, quod manducatio respicit actum personae, ideo secundum naturam non est manducatio, sed praesupponitur.

5. Ad illud quod obiicitur de spe, dicunt quidam, quod non unit, quia spes proprie est futuri; tamen dicendum, quod istae manducationes non distinguuntur secundum virtutes — quia manducatio spiritualis est secundum fidem et caritatem — sed secundum *res Sacramenti.* Unde omne Sacramentum, quod quidem habet res duas, potest recipi sacramentaliter et spiritualiter.

SCHOLION.

I. S. Augustini distinctio duplicis modi manducandi hoc augustissimum Sacramentum, de qua agitur in his 4 quaestionibus, communiter recepta est tanquam divisio adaequata. Non tamen unus modus excludit alterum, immo de iure cum sacramentali manducatione, quae fit ore corporis, coniuncta esse deberet spiritualis, quae fit ore cordis. In usu autem ab invicem separari possunt et separantur. Non tamen manducatio, quae fit solo ore corporali, semper est sacramentalis ex parte manducantis, quando scilicet utilur speciebus, non qualenus sunt Sacramentum, sed pure materialiter; ita qui nescit, species esse consecratas, Sacramentum non sumit sacramentaliter, quia non nisi per accidens illud sumit (cfr. infra q. 3.). — Etiam spiritualis manducatio variis modis fieri potest. Hinc S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. n. 1. ad 3.) docet, illud spiritualiter manducari non tantum ob desiderium sumendi hoc Sacramentum iam institutum, sed etiam « propter figuram [eiusdem], sicut dicit Apostolus I. Cor. 10, 3. 4, quod antiqui Patres... spiritualem escam, manducaverunt et spiritualem potum biberunt ». Idem tamen in Comment. (hic q. 1. n. 2. quaestiunc. 1.) distinguit inter *manducare spiritualiter Christum* et *manducare spiritualiter hoc Sacramentum;* quo supposito, dicit (ad 2.), « quod antiqui Patres non manducaverunt spiritualiter *hoc Sacramentum,* quia nondum erat institutum... manducaverunt tamen spiritualiter *Christum* ». Idem docent Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. n. 2. § 1, et B. Albert., hic a. 5. Agitur autem in his magis de nomine quam de re. — Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2.) dicit, quadruplici modo percipi posse hoc Sacramentum, scilicet nec sacramentaliter nec spiritualiter [nempe pure materialiter]; vel sacramentaliter, sed non spiritualiter; vel sacramentaliter et spiritualiter; vel tantum spiritualiter et non sacramentaliter.

De hac 1. quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 1. n. 1. 2. — Scot., in utroque Scripto quaest. cit. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; S. art. cit. — B. Albert., hic a. 1. 3. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. — De hac et seqq. qq. Durand., hic q. 1; Dionys. Carth., hic q. 1.

english:
ARTICLE I.

*On the eating of the eucharist in general.*

QUESTION I.

*On the twofold mode of eating the eucharist.*

As regards the first, then, one proceeds thus. That there ought to be *two* modes of eating, namely "the sacramental and the spiritual," as the Master says[^2], is shown:

1. First by the authority of the canon, John 6[^3]: *He who eats me lives because of me,* here the spiritual mode is touched upon; but 1 Corinthians 11: *He who eats unworthily eats judgment to himself,* and here another mode is touched upon, which is not spiritual: therefore the eating of the body of Christ is manifold.

2. Likewise, by the authority of Augustine[^4]: "He eats spiritually who abides in the unity of Christ and the Church, which the Sacrament signifies": "but he who is at variance with Christ neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks the blood, even if to his judgment he daily receives the Sacrament of so great a reality."

3. Likewise, this same thing is shown *by reason:* for, since there are only two realities of this Sacrament[^5], and it is possible to receive one without the other: therefore there are two distinct modes.

4. Likewise, eating bespeaks the use of the Sacrament; therefore, since here there is a Sacrament inward and outward, it is plain that there are two eatings[^6].

On the contrary: 1. It seems that there is but *one:* for "where one is for the sake of another, there is but one thing"[^7]: therefore if the sacramental is for the sake of the spiritual, or toward the spiritual, as a sign toward what is signified: therefore there is but one eating.

2. Likewise, *the flesh of Christ is truly food,*[^8] therefore just as it belongs to light to illumine, so it belongs to that flesh to feed: but not corporeally, therefore spiritually; but he who receives sacramentally receives the flesh, and so is fed spiritually: therefore there is but one mode of eating, namely the spiritual.

3. Likewise, it is shown that there are several modes: for, as is said above in distinction four[^9], some receive in baptism the reality only, some the Sacrament only, some both: therefore three modes; for the same reason then here too there are three eatings.

4. Likewise, union is threefold[^10]: in nature, in faith, and in charity; but to the union of faith there corresponds the sacramental eating: therefore also to the union of charity the spiritual: therefore there will be a third mode corresponding to the union in nature.

5. Likewise, the theological virtue is threefold in us, and each in its own way unites: therefore since one mode of eating corresponds to faith, another to charity; another will correspond to hope.

CONCLUSION.

*The eucharist is eaten in a twofold mode, namely sacramentally and spiritually.*

I respond: It must be said that the mode of eating is twofold. The distinction of this arises from a threefold source, namely from the *disposition of those receiving:* for some approach ill-disposed, and these eat sacramentally; some well, and these spiritually. — Further the distinction arises secondly from the *mode of receiving:*

<!-- page 202 -->

for some receive *with the mouth of the body,* and these sacramentally; but some *with the mouth of the heart,* and these spiritually: hence according to the twofold mouth the eating is twofold[^11]. — Thirdly it arises from *the Sacrament itself:* for it has a twofold reality, of which one can be received without the other; thus just as baptism is twofold, namely of water and of the Spirit, from a twofold reality[^12], so too the mode of eating is twofold. — And this last is the complete one, since one reality can be received without the other.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that *where one is for the sake of another;* it must be said that this is true, if the one is so for the sake of the other that it cannot be separated; but when it is separated, then it no longer remains one[^1].

2. To that which is objected, that the flesh always feeds; it must be said that that act always regards the disposition of the one receiving, like *illumining;* hence as the disposition is doubled, so too the mode of eating.

3. To that which is objected, that there are three modes in baptism, and so forth; it must be said that that third mode is distinguished only *materially* from the other two.

4. To that which is objected concerning the union of nature, it must be said that eating regards the act of the person, and so according to nature there is no eating, but it is presupposed.

5. To that which is objected concerning hope, some say that it does not unite, because hope properly is of the future; yet it must be said that these eatings are not distinguished according to the virtues — for spiritual eating is according to faith and charity — but according to the *realities of the Sacrament.* Hence every Sacrament which indeed has two realities can be received sacramentally and spiritually.

SCHOLION.

I. Augustine's distinction of the twofold mode of eating this most august Sacrament, which is treated in these 4 questions, is commonly received as an adequate division. Yet the one mode does not exclude the other; rather, by right, with the sacramental eating, which is done with the mouth of the body, the spiritual, which is done with the mouth of the heart, ought to be joined. In use, however, they can be and are separated from one another. Yet the eating which is done with the bodily mouth alone is not always sacramental on the part of the one eating, namely when he uses the species not insofar as they are the Sacrament, but purely materially; thus he who does not know that the species are consecrated does not receive the Sacrament sacramentally, since he receives it only accidentally (cf. below q. 3.). — Spiritual eating too can take place in various modes. Hence S. Thom. (S. III. q. 80. n. 1. ad 3.) teaches that it is spiritually eaten not only out of desire of receiving this Sacrament already instituted, but also "on account of [its] figure, as the Apostle says 1 Cor. 10, 3. 4, that the ancient Fathers... ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink." Yet the same author in his Commentary (here q. 1. n. 2. little-question 1.) distinguishes between *eating Christ spiritually* and *eating this Sacrament spiritually;* and on this supposition he says (ad 2.) "that the ancient Fathers did not eat *this Sacrament* spiritually, since it was not yet instituted... yet they ate *Christ* spiritually." The same is taught by Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. n. 2. § 1, and B. Albert., here a. 5. But in these things the dispute is more about the name than about the reality. — Scot. (IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. n. 2.) says that this Sacrament can be received in a fourfold mode, namely neither sacramentally nor spiritually [that is, purely materially]; or sacramentally, but not spiritually; or sacramentally and spiritually; or only spiritually and not sacramentally.

On this 1st question: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 1. n. 1. 2. — Scot., in both Writings the cited question. — S. Thom., here q. 1. a. 1. little-question 3; the cited Summa article. — B. Albert., here a. 1. 3. — Petr. a Tar., here q. 1. a. 2. little-question 1. — Richard. a Med., here a. 1. q. 3. — On this and the following questions Durand., here q. 1; Dionys. Carth., here q. 1.

la: *Vide infra d. 28. q. 4. ad 3, et III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 3. ad 4.* — Superius post *ibi* codd. I V supplent *ita.*

en: See below d. 28 q. 4 ad 3, and III Sent. d. 27 a. 2 q. 3 ad 4. — Above, after *ibi* (there), codd. I V supply *ita* (so).

la: Lit. Magistri, c. 1.

en: Text of the Master, ch. 1.

la: Vers. 58: *Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me.* — Seq. textus est 1. Cor. 11. 29: *Qui enim manducat et bibit indigne* etc.

en: Verse 58: *He who eats me, he also shall live because of me.* — The following text is 1 Cor. 11. 29: *For he who eats and drinks unworthily* etc.

la: Integra haec Augustini sententia exhibetur in Glossa apud Petrum Lombard. et Lyranum (Glossa *ordinaria*). Prima eius pars insinuatur ab August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 13. 15. 17. seq. et tr. 27. n. 6. Cfr. Serm. 71. (alias 11. de Verbis Domini) c. 11. n. 17; C. *Credere in Iesum Christum* (59.), et C. *Hoc Sacramentum* (63.), seq., de Consecrat. d. 2. Secunda pars invenitur in libro Sententiarum, quas S. Prosper ex operibus Augustini collegit, n. 341. (alias 339.), et insinuatur ab Augustino, in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 18. Cfr. C. *Qui discordat* (65.), de Consecrat. d. 2. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — In fine testimonii pro *accipit* Vat. *accipiat.*

en: This entire sentence of Augustine is exhibited in the Gloss in Peter Lombard and Lyra (ordinary Gloss). Its first part is intimated by Augustine, on John's Gospel tr. 26 nn. 13, 15, 17 f. and tr. 27 n. 6. Cf. Serm. 71 (otherwise 11, On the Words of the Lord) c. 11 n. 17; C. *Credere in Iesum Christum* (59), and C. *Hoc Sacramentum* (63), f., De Consecrat. d. 2. The second part is found in the book of Sentences which S. Prosper collected from the works of Augustine, n. 341 (otherwise 339), and is intimated by Augustine, on John's Gospel tr. 26 n. 18. Cf. C. *Qui discordat* (65), De Consecrat. d. 2. See here the Master's text, c. 1. — At the end of the testimony, for *accipit* Vat. has *accipiat.*

la: In cod. *aa* subiungitur *scilicet corpus Christi verum et mysticum.* Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 7, et ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: In cod. *aa* there is added *namely the body of Christ, the true and the mystical.* Cf. above the Master's text, d. VIII c. 7, and there the Commentary p. II a. 2 q. 1.

la: Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 14.

en: Cf. Innocent III, On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar, IV c. 14.

la: Secundum Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Post *vel* cod. *aa* addit *se habet.*

en: According to Aristotle, Topics III c. 2. Cf. tom. II p. 639, note 2. — After *vel* cod. *aa* adds *se habet.*

en: The Master's text, c. 1.

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 1. a. 1, supplet *qua unitur homo Deo.* Vat. omittit primum *ergo.*

en: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV q. 11 m. 1 a. 1, supplies *by which man is united to God.* Vat. omits the first *ergo.*

la: De quo vide August., de Continentia, c. 1. n. 2. seqq., et de Mendacio, c. 16. n. 31. seq. Cfr. etiam Gregor., XX. Moral. c. 2. n. 5.

en: On which see Augustine, On Continence, c. 1 n. 2 ff., and On Lying, c. 16 n. 31 f. Cf. also Gregory, Morals XX c. 2 n. 5.

la: Nempe gratia et charactere. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. in fine; d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in corp., a. 2. q. 3. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — Inferius pro *completum* edd. cum pluribus codd. *completivum.*

en: Namely by grace and by character. Cf. above d. 3 p. I a. 1 q. 1 at the end; d. 4 p. I a. 1 q. 3 in the body, a. 2 q. 3, and p. II a. 1 q. 1 f. — Below, for *completum* the editions with several codd. read *completivum.*

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin transcribed from the Quaracchi raw OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines L22723–L22912), with the freshly rendered PDF page bands (pp.201–202 = PDF 221–222, offset +20) treated as authoritative wherever the two-column OCR cascade-shattered. Vision PNGs for pp.220–223 were not present in `raw/vision/vol4/`; they were rendered with `pdftoppm` and cropped via `tools/colcrop.py`.
- **Title.** The task hint ("Quid sit manducare sacramentaliter") is INCORRECT for this chunk. The printed title on p.201 reads **QUAESTIO I — *De duplici modo manducandi eucharistiam*** ("On the twofold mode of eating the eucharist"). ART I, q1 = "eating in general / the twofold mode." Alignment confirmed; q1 is the *first* of the four ART-I questions (the divisio's tractatio enumerates: 1 modes of eating, 2 spiritual eating, 3 sacramental eating, 4 whether Christ ate in both modes). "Quid sit manducare sacramentaliter" is actually the title of QUAESTIO III (existing file `bon-sent-IV-d9-a1-q3.md`).
- **Page-split map.** Body opener + ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I headings + pro-arguments (1–4), Contra (1–5), Conclusio, and the opening of Respondeo are on **p.201** (PDF 221). Respondeo continues + Solutiones (1–5) + the SCHOLION are on **p.202** (PDF 222). `<!-- page 202 -->` marks the break mid-Respondeo (at "quia quidam suscipiunt *ore corporis*..."). Page 200 (PDF 220) carries the divisio's *Tractatio quaestionum* enumeration tail and is owned by `bon-sent-IV-d9-divisio.md`. Page 203 (PDF 223) is entirely QUAESTIO II (*Quid sit manducare spiritualiter*) and is owned by the next chunk (`bon-sent-IV-d9-a1-q2`, raw L22913+).
- **Footer ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. This chunk claims ALL body-anchored notes on its two pages: p.201 carries 10 footnotes (renumbered here as [^2]–[^10]; note that p.201's apparatus opens with note 1, which anchors back in the divisio's *Tractatio quaestionum* on the same page-bottom run — that note belongs to the divisio chunk and is NOT reproduced here), and p.202 carries 5 footnotes (its note 1 anchors in this Q1 Solutio; renumbered [^1], [^3], [^4], [^5], [^11], [^12]). Total claimed: **15** (well above the 5-note self-check floor). Renumbering is sequential by anchor order within the body.
- **Scholion disposition.** The SCHOLION (printed on p.202) is a single block keyed to all four ART-I questions (sections I–IV plus per-question bibliographic blocks). Per the chunking rule, ONLY the q1-keyed material is rendered here: scholion section **I** (Augustine's twofold-mode division; the "in usu separari" discussion) PLUS the "**De hac 1. quaestione**" bibliographic block immediately following it. Sections **II** (De seq. [2.] quaestione), **III** (Quoad 3. quaestionem), **IV** (In solvenda 4. quaestione), and the "De eadem quaestione" tail are excluded; they belong to the q2/q3/q4 chunks respectively.
- **`[?]` flags.** None. The body OCR was legible against the bands; the few OCR garbles (*manducuto*, *insiniiatur*, page-bottom apparatus fragments) were resolved unambiguously from the PDF bands and the standard Quaracchi apparatus conventions.
- **Apparatus-anchoring fix (2026-07-13).** The Latin body carried 14 `[^N]` markers against 12 apparatus defs — a duplication, not a missing entry: all 12 defs (`[^1]`–`[^12]`) already had a correctly-placed anchor elsewhere in the body, so the two extra occurrences were stray duplicates, not mislabelled markers. Diagnosis: `[^3]` correctly anchors "Ioannis sexto[^3]" (Solutio ad 1, line 36) — its apparatus text glosses John 6:58 and the following 1 Cor. 11:29 citation exactly; the spurious second `[^3]` sat on "praesupponitur[^3]" in Ad 4 (union of nature), where nothing in the apparatus text corresponds — deleted. `[^4]` correctly anchors "auctoritate Augustini[^4]" (arg. 2) — its apparatus text is the full Augustine testimony being cited there; the spurious second `[^4]` sat on "futuri[^4]" in Ad 5 (on hope), again unrelated to the apparatus content — deleted. Both deletions removed only the bracket marker, no wording changed. Then mirrored all 12 markers into the English body at the parallel lemma (Master/John 6/Augustine/Sacrament's two realities/two eatings/"one thing"/food/distinction four/threefold union/twofold mouth/twofold reality/"no longer remains one"). End state: 12 apparatus defs = 12 Latin anchors = 12 English anchors, each marker once per body — verified by the repo's marker-parity script.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 2

title_alt:
Quid sit manducare spiritualiter
What it is to eat spiritually

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 203 -->

### Quaestio II. *Quid sit manducare spiritualiter.*

Secundo quaeritur, quid sit *manducare spiritualiter*, sive pro quanto dicatur quis manducare spiritualiter. Et quod *credere* sit spiritualiter manducare, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Domini, Ioannis sexto[^1]: *Nisi manducaveritis carnem filii hominis, non habebitis vitam in vobis*; et Ioannis undecimo: *Qui credit in me, etiam si mortuus fuerit, vivet*: si igitur vita spiritualis non est sine manducatione spirituali, et *vivere* est in nobis per fidem: ergo vel *credere* est manducare, vel non sine manducatione.

2. Item, hoc videtur expressius auctoritate Augustini, quam etiam Magister ponit in littera[^2]: «Crede, et manducasti»; sed constat, quod hoc non intelligit sacramentaliter: ergo spiritualiter, et sic etc.

3. Item, quandocumque aliquis interius lavatur, dicitur spiritualiter baptizari: ergo a simili, quandocumque aliquis spiritualiter masticat et reficitur, spiritualiter manducat: sed hoc est per actum fidei devotae, ubi est discussio et spiritualis refectio[^3]: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. Si credere est spiritualiter manducare; cum multi peccatores et credant et aliquam devotionem habeant, videtur, quod secundum hoc spiritualiter manducent; hoc autem est contra Augustinum[^4], qui dicit, quod nullus spiritualiter manducat, nisi qui est membrum Christi et manet in Christo.

2. Item, si actus fidei etiam cum caritate[^5] sufficit ad spiritualem manducationem, ergo omne quod credimus et diligimus, manducamus: ergo cum multa alia credamus quam hoc Sacramentum vel rem huius Sacramenti; videtur, quod manducatio spiritualis sit omnium articulorum — quod nemo sanae mentis concederet — et quod manducatio non sit huic Sacramento et rei propria.

3. Item, manducatio spiritualis est dicta ad similitudinem materialis; sed qui comedit materialiter incorporat sibi cibum, qui autem credit et diligit Christum incorporatur Christo: ergo potius manducatur, quam manducet: ergo videtur, quod manducatio spiritualis, qua quis manducat, in actu fidei et caritatis non consistat.

> **Conclusio.** Ad spiritualem manducationem requiritur recogitatio fidei quasi masticatio, et affectio caritatis quasi incorporatio.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod manducatio primo et proprie in corporalibus invenitur et ab his ad spiritualia est translata; et ideo, si velimus accipere rectam manducationem spiritualem, necesse habemus ad propriam acceptionem vocabuli nos transferre. Notandum igitur, quod licet multiplex actus sit in manducatione corporali annexus et consequens, iste tamen duplex est, qui est de integritate, masticatio scilicet et incorporatio, ut patet aspicienti. — Si ergo ratio manducationis congrue transfertur ad spiritualia, oportet haec duo reperire, et secundum ea, in quibus haec duo consistunt, manducatio spiritualis attenditur. Spiritualis masticatio est recogitatio cibi, scilicet carnis Christi pro nobis expositae in pretium ad redimendum et in cibum ad reficiendum[^6]. *Incorporatio* vero attenditur, dum recogitans caritatis amore ei quod cogitatur, iungitur et sic incorporatur, et dum incorporatur, reficitur et magis assimilatur.

Ad hoc ergo, quod quis spiritualiter manducet, requiritur recogitatio fidei et affectio caritatis. In primo est masticatio, in secundo incorporatio; et ex his duobus integratur spiritualis manducatio. — Concedo ergo, quod non sufficit qualiscumque fides, sed necessario fides operans per dilectionem[^7]. Et de hac currunt tres rationes ad primam partem.

1. Ad illud ergo quod primo obiicitur in opposito de fide informi, dicendum, quod verum est, quod illa non sufficit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod secundum hoc omnes articulos manducamus; dicendum, quod
<!-- page 204 -->
proprie loquendo, non quaecumque discussio et recogitatio fidei dicitur masticatio, sed illa quae est cibi; et ideo non quilibet actus credendi manducare nos facit, nisi ille sit, qui est ipsius carnis Christi pro nobis ad redimendum expositae, ubi fuit eius decoctio, et ad reficiendum, ubi vera consistit refectio[^8].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de assimilatione, dicendum, quod non est omnimoda similitudo, est tamen similitudo sufficiens ad translationem: quia, sicut hic corporaliter est masticatio et incorporatio, ita in manducatione spirituali. Sed in hoc est dissimilitudo: quia in corporali manducans convertit in se cibum, quia dignior et nobilior est cibo; in spirituali est e contrario, quia cibus est nobis dignior et perfectior et completior: ideo potius in ipsum mutamur et incorporamur, quam e converso[^9]. — Ratio igitur non valet, quia non est omnino simile; et in translatione non oportet omnimodam attendi similitudinem, sed sufficit reperire aliqualem[^10].

---

english:
### Question II. *What it is to eat spiritually.*

Secondly it is asked what it is *to eat spiritually*, or in what respect someone is said to eat spiritually. And that *to believe* is to eat spiritually seems so:

1. By the authority of the Lord, in John six[^1]: *Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, you will not have life in you*; and in John eleven: *He who believes in me, even though he be dead, shall live*: if therefore spiritual life is not without spiritual eating, and *to live* is in us through faith: then either *to believe* is to eat, or it is not without eating.

2. Likewise, this seems more expressly by the authority of Augustine, which the Master also sets down in the text[^2]: «Believe, and you have eaten»; but it is established that he does not understand this sacramentally: therefore spiritually, and so on.

3. Likewise, whenever someone is inwardly washed, he is said to be baptized spiritually: therefore by a similar reasoning, whenever someone spiritually chews and is refreshed, he eats spiritually: but this is through an act of devout faith, where there is examination and spiritual refreshment[^3]: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. If to believe is to eat spiritually; since many sinners both believe and have some devotion, it seems that according to this they would eat spiritually; but this is against Augustine[^4], who says that no one eats spiritually except him who is a member of Christ and abides in Christ.

2. Likewise, if an act of faith even with charity[^5] suffices for spiritual eating, then everything we believe and love, we eat: therefore, since we believe many other things than this Sacrament or the reality of this Sacrament; it seems that spiritual eating would be of all the articles — which no one of sound mind would grant — and that eating would not be proper to this Sacrament and its reality.

3. Likewise, spiritual eating is so called by likeness to material eating; but he who eats materially incorporates the food into himself, whereas he who believes and loves Christ is incorporated into Christ: therefore he is rather eaten than eats: therefore it seems that the spiritual eating by which one eats does not consist in an act of faith and charity.

> **Conclusion.** For spiritual eating there is required the reconsideration of faith as a kind of chewing, and the affection of charity as a kind of incorporation.

**I respond:** It must be said that eating is found first and properly in corporeal things and is transferred from these to spiritual things; and therefore, if we wish to grasp spiritual eating rightly, we must transfer ourselves to the proper acceptation of the word. It must be noted therefore that, although many an act is joined and consequent in corporeal eating, yet this twofold act belongs to its integrity, namely chewing and incorporation, as is plain to one who looks. — If therefore the account of eating is fittingly transferred to spiritual things, these two must be found, and spiritual eating is understood according to those things in which these two consist. Spiritual chewing is the reconsideration of the food, namely of the flesh of Christ set forth for us as a price for redeeming and as food for refreshing[^6]. *Incorporation*, however, is understood when the one reconsidering, by the love of charity, is joined to that which is thought of and so is incorporated, and while he is incorporated, he is refreshed and made more like.

For this, then, that someone may eat spiritually, there is required the reconsideration of faith and the affection of charity. In the first is chewing, in the second incorporation; and from these two spiritual eating is made complete. — I grant therefore that no kind of faith whatever suffices, but necessarily faith working through love[^7]. And concerning this three reasonings run as to the first part.

1. To that, then, which is first objected on the opposite side concerning unformed faith, it must be said that it is true that it does not suffice.

2. To that which is objected, that according to this we eat all the articles; it must be said that,
<!-- page 204 -->
properly speaking, not every examination and reconsideration of faith is called chewing, but that which is of the food; and therefore not every act of believing makes us eat, unless it be that which is of the very flesh of Christ set forth for us for redeeming, where his decocting was, and for refreshing, where true refreshment consists[^8].

3. To that which is objected concerning assimilation, it must be said that there is not a complete likeness, yet there is a likeness sufficient for the transference: because, just as here corporeally there is chewing and incorporation, so in spiritual eating. But in this there is a dissimilarity: because in corporeal eating the eater converts the food into himself, since he is worthier and nobler than the food; in spiritual eating it is the contrary, because the food is worthier and more perfect and more complete than we are: therefore we are rather changed and incorporated into it, than the reverse[^9]. — The reasoning therefore is not valid, because it is not entirely alike; and in a transference it is not necessary that a complete likeness be regarded, but it suffices to find some [likeness][^10].

---

la: Vers. 54, ubi Vulgata post *hominis* addit *et biberitis eius sanguinem*. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 11, 25.

en: Verse 54, where the Vulgate after *of man* adds *and drink his blood*. — The following text is John 11, 25.

la: Hic c. 1.

en: Here, c. 1.

la: Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. IV. tr. 5. c. 3: Masticatio spiritualis, quae est diiudicatio corporis Christi, de qua loquitur Apostolus [I. Cor. 11, 29.], redarguens eum qui indigne accipit... diiudicare enim debemus, quale corpus sit Christi, quam nobile, quam vivificativum... Secundum est delectatio [refectio], qua delectamur in Christo... Diiudicatio autem illi proprie est per fidem, similiter et delectatio; dicit enim Augustinus, quod in cognitione est tota delectatio etc.

en: William of Auxerre, *Summa*, pt. IV, tr. 5, c. 3: Spiritual chewing, which is the discerning of the body of Christ, of which the Apostle speaks [1 Cor. 11, 29], reproving him who receives unworthily... for we ought to discern of what sort the body of Christ is, how noble, how life-giving... The second is the delight [refreshment] by which we are delighted in Christ... But the discerning belongs to him properly through faith, and likewise the delight; for Augustine says that in knowledge is the whole delight, etc.

la: Cfr. August., Serm. 131. (alias 2. de Verbis Apostoli), c. 1. n. 1, quod etiam allegatur C. *Qui manducant* (58.), de Consecrat. d. 2. — De *incorporatione* cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 25. n. 12. et 18, tr. 26. n. 13. et tr. 27. n. 6.

en: Cf. Augustine, *Sermon* 131 (otherwise 2, *On the Words of the Apostle*), c. 1, n. 1, which is also cited at the canon *Qui manducant* (58), *de Consecratione*, d. 2. — On *incorporation* cf. Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John*, tr. 25, nn. 12 and 18, tr. 26, n. 13, and tr. 27, n. 6.

la: Non pauci codd. et ed. I perperam *charactere*.

en: Not a few codices and the first edition wrongly read *charactere* [by a character/mark].

la: Respicitur Gal. 5, 6: Nam in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet... sed fides, quae per caritatem operatur. — Post *sed necessario* [cod. U *sed motus*] cod. O supplet *requiritur*.

en: Reference is made to Gal. 5, 6: For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything... but faith, which works through charity. — After *but necessarily* [cod. U: *but a motion*] cod. O supplies *is required*.

la: Vide supra pag. 201, nota 4.

en: See above, p. 201, note 4.

la: In opusculo, cui titulus *Vitis mystica* (inter opera Bernardi), c. 43. n. 148. legitur: Ecce, ipso [Iesu] teste, *panis vivus, qui de caelo descendit* [Ioan. 6, 33. seqq.], decoctus duplici igne caritatis et passionis, odorem suum longe lateque dispergit. Quis hunc non sequatur?... Sed praeterire non possumus, quod transituri mare panem bis coctum necessarium habent. Quicumque ergo se in hoc mari magno huius saeculi esse cognoverit... si securus vult esse, habeat hunc panem coctum fortissimum, Iesum in nave crucis suae, quem comedat, quem adoret, quo reficiatur etc. Cfr. Meditatio in passion. et resurrect. Domini (inter opera Bernardi), c. 12. n. 31. — Post *expositae* Vat. addit ex Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 1. a. 3, *in cruce* et post *ad reficiendum* subiungit *in altari*.

en: In the little work entitled *The Mystical Vine* (among the works of Bernard), c. 43, n. 148, one reads: Behold, on his [Jesus'] own testimony, the *living bread which came down from heaven* [John 6, 33 ff.], decocted by the twofold fire of charity and passion, spreads its fragrance far and wide. Who would not follow this one?... But we cannot pass over the fact that those about to cross the sea have need of bread twice baked. Whoever therefore knows himself to be in this great sea of this world... if he wishes to be secure, let him have this most strongly baked bread, Jesus in the ship of his cross, whom he may eat, whom he may adore, by whom he may be refreshed, etc. Cf. *Meditation on the Passion and Resurrection of the Lord* (among the works of Bernard), c. 12, n. 31. — After *set forth* the Vatican edition adds, from Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. IV, q. 11, m. 1, a. 3, *on the cross*, and after *for refreshing* subjoins *on the altar*.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 187, nota 6.

en: Cf. above, p. 187, note 6.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 22913–23014), with the PDF column-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p203-{L,R}-*`, `vol4-p204-{L,R}-*`) treated as authoritative for the Respondeo/Solutio and all footers per the Vol II/IV two-column override. Opener confirmed: "Secundo quaeritur, quid sit *manducare spiritualiter*" (L22916); title from p.203 running display "*Quid sit manducare spiritualiter.*" — **alignment confirmed** (ART. I, q.2, spiritual eating).
- **Page-split map.** p.203 carries the whole question through the Respondeo and the first two replies (`Ad primum`, opening of `Ad secundum`); the page break falls mid–reply 2 at raw L22996 (`-204 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.`). p.204-L+R top carries the tail of reply 2, the Notandum, and reply 3 (de assimilatione), ending at "...reperire aliqualem" immediately before QUAESTIO III (raw L23015).
- **Footer ownership.** p.203 footers 1–7 are all anchored in this question's body (videtur 1–3, contra 1–2, Respondeo nn. 6–7) and are rendered here. p.204's footer carries **eleven** notes; the column-band reads show q.3's body markers begin at note **4** (Per simile⁴, masticatio⁵, [3.] no marker, veraciter⁷, contra ⁸–¹¹), so p.204 notes **1–3** (Vitis mystica = "ad reficiendum"; "Cfr. supra pag. 187, nota 6" = "e converso"; "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." = "aliqualem") belong to THIS question and are rendered here as `[^8]`–`[^10]`. p.204 notes **4–11 belong to the neighbor a1-q3** (the auto-chunked q3 skeleton mislabeled them 1–11 and wrongly grabbed these three — to be corrected when q3 is promoted). q1 (a1-q1) owns the prior footers (≤ raw L22912).
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The only SCHOLION in the d.9 / ART.-region block (raw L23474) sits after ARTICULUS II and is keyed to ART. **II** questions ("De hac 1. quaestione", "In duabus seqq.", "De utraque (2. 3.) quaestione" — all ART. II references). ART. I (q1–q4) carries no scholion section. There is therefore no `De 2. quaestione` scholion for this question.
- **`[?]` flags.** None. All ten footnotes and all body markers verified against the PDF column-bands.

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. 9, Art. 1, Q. 3

title_alt:
Quid sit manducare sacramentaliter
What it is to eat sacramentally

source_text:
<!-- page 204 -->

### Quaestio III. *Quid sit manducare sacramentaliter.*

Tertio quaeritur, quid sit *manducare sacramentaliter*, sive pro quanto aliquis dicatur manducare sacramentaliter; et quaeritur, utrum sufficiat sola actio corporalis. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Per simile: qui enim mergitur, forma Sacramenti baptismi servata, si non habeat aliquid resistens, baptizatur sacramentaliter[^1]: ergo videtur similiter, quod manducet sacramentaliter qui recipit corporaliter ipsum Sacramentum.

2. Item, sola spiritualis masticatio et incorporatio rei facit manducationem spiritualem[^2]: ergo videtur, quod sola degustatio sive masticatio specierum facit manducationem sacramentalem.

3. Item, minima dispositio, quae possit haberi ad hoc Sacramentum, est fides informis; sed sine hac potest manducari sacramentaliter: ergo videtur, quod sola actio corporalis sufficiat. Probatio minoris: haereticus sacerdos potest conficere, sicut infra[^3] videbitur; sed non minus est conficere quam sacramentaliter sumere: ergo haereticus potest sacramentaliter sumere: ergo sine fidei actu potest sacramentaliter manducari: ergo sola actione corporali.

4. Item, quaecumque inseparabiliter sunt unita, quamdiu sunt, in nullo actu separantur: ergo qui sumunt et manducant unum, et alterum; sed species continent corpus Christi veraciter[^4]: ergo qui species comedit comedit corpus Christi. Sed non comedit ex hoc spiritualiter: ergo sacramentaliter saltem.

**Contra:**
1. Ad actum sacramentalem requiritur intentio, sicut supra[^5] probatum est, et si quis verba diceret et non intenderet consecrare, non conficeret: ergo qui manducat, si non intendit, sacramentaliter non manducat.

2. Item, fides est fundamentum omnium Sacramentorum, maxime huius, quia in forma huius dicitur: *Mysterium fidei* etc.[^6]: ergo si aliquis degustat et non credit, non sumit sacramentaliter.

3. Item, duo sunt de integritate Sacramenti, scilicet significatio et sanctificatio[^7]: ergo ad hoc, quod aliqua ratio Sacramenti salvetur, necesse est, aliquod istorum reperiri; sed ei qui non credit, Sacramentum nec significat nec efficaciam sanctificationis praestat: ergo talis nullo modo manducat.

4. Item, si sola masticatio corporalis sufficeret, tunc mus et Angelus, assumto corpore, et homo ignorans sacramentaliter sumerent; quorum quodlibet est inconveniens[^8]: restat ergo, quod non sufficit.

Est igitur quaestio, quid requiratur.

> **Conclusio.** Sacramentalis manducatio est manducare Sacramentum cum intentione sumendi illud ut Sacramentum.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod *sacramentaliter manducare* est manducare Sacramentum et ut Sacramentum.
<!-- page 205 -->
Quoniam enim sacramentaliter manducare est dispositio actus manducandi, ideo ad hoc, quod actus sit *sacramentalis*, necesse est, quod respiciat ipsum Sacramentum ut Sacramentum. Ad hoc autem, quod aliquis manducet Sacramentum manducando species, duo exiguntur, scilicet cibi existentia et eius ad cibatum naturalis convenientia. Primum exigitur, quia, si non praecessit Sacramenti confectio, non potest sequi manducatio. Secundum exigitur, quia cibus iste solis hominibus est concessus; unde sicut homo solus baptizatur[^9], ita corpus Christi sacramentaliter a solo homine manducatur; et sicut solus homo suscipit Sacramentum baptismi, ita solus homo suscipit Sacramentum eucharistiae. — Ad hoc vero, quod manducet *ut Sacramentum*, necessaria est *intentio* et intentionis *regulatio* vel secundum fidem, quae est in *ipso*, vel secundum fidem, quae est in *altero*. *Intentio*, inquam, necessaria est; nam si quis iret ad mensam et intenderet corpus reficere, et aliquis pro pane communi Sacramentum sibi sicut panem offerret, et ipse intenderet omnino cibum corporalem sumere[^10]; nemo diceret, eum sacramentaliter manducasse. — Necesse est etiam, quod illa intentio *dirigatur* vel secundum fidem, quae est in *ipso*, vel in *altero*, quia vel oportet, quod credat, quod sub illa specie aliquid spirituale lateat, quod sumere intendat; vel oportet, quod saltem intendat sumere quod alios credere aestimat, quamvis ipse non credat. Unde credo, quod si aliquis haereticus intendit accipere quod aestimat Ecclesiam credere esse corpus Christi, quamvis non credat, sacramentaliter comedit; quia, quamvis intentio sua non copuletur[^11] nec attingat rem Sacramenti per propriam fidem, attingit tamen mediante fide aliena. Unde sacramentaliter comedit, quamvis non ita attingat, sicut ille qui credit fide propria.

Et sic patet, pro quanto dicatur sacramentaliter manducare, scilicet quia Sacramentum primum vere existit, et ipse qui manducat illud ut Sacramentum sumere intendit; sive quia credit esse verum Sacramentum, sive quia aestimat, alios credere.

Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sufficit sola manducatio corporalis; dicendum, quod falsum est, sicut ostendunt rationes ad oppositum, immo quatuor exiguntur, sicut tactum est.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur de mersione, dicendum, quod non sufficit in adulto, sicut prius[^12] dictum fuit, nisi adsit intentio regulata a fide vel in se, vel in alio; sic in proposito.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de spirituali manducatione, dicendum, quod non est simile: quia in actu fidei et caritatis semper res spiritualis attingitur, et ita res spiritualis non frustratur. Sed cum quis manducat corporaliter, potest esse, quod non attingat aliquid, quod spiritualiter subest, nec intellectu nec affectu, nec per se nec per alterum; et ita non manducat ut Sacramentum. Et sic patet illud.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de fide informi, dicendum, quod falsum est, quia minor est cognitio aestimationis quam fidei[^13], et minus est intendere facere quod alius facit, quam intendere quod credit; et quia dispositio aliqua est, ideo aliquo modo est manducatio sacramentalis, quamvis non ita plene.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de inseparabilitate, dicendum, quod inseparabilia sunt quantum ad situm, non tamen sunt inseparabilia quantum ad actum[^14]. Potest enim quis percutere et perforare et frangere speciem, et tamen nihil facit circa rem; ita et manducare. Et quoniam Sacramentum dicit comparationem ad rem, nihil dicitur attingere sacramentaliter, nisi etiam attingat rem; et hoc potest esse, sicut visum est: et ideo non sufficit solum speciem manducare ad manducationem sacramentalem, nisi attingat rem per intentionem regulatam aliquo genere cognitionis, scilicet vel aestimationis, vel fidei informis, vel fidei formatae, vel etiam scientiae certae, ut in Christo[^15].

---

english:
<!-- page 204 -->

### Question III. *What it is to eat sacramentally.*

Thirdly it is asked what it is *to eat sacramentally*, or in what sense someone is said to eat sacramentally; and it is asked whether bodily action alone suffices. And that it does, it seems:

1. By a likeness: for one who is immersed, the form of the sacrament of baptism being preserved, if he have nothing resisting, is baptized sacramentally[^1]: therefore it seems likewise that he eats sacramentally who receives the Sacrament itself bodily.

2. Likewise, spiritual mastication and incorporation of the thing alone makes eating spiritual[^2]: therefore it seems that the tasting or mastication of the species alone makes eating sacramental.

3. Likewise, the least disposition that can be had toward this Sacrament is unformed faith; but without this one can eat sacramentally: therefore it seems that bodily action alone suffices. Proof of the minor: a heretical priest can consecrate, as will be seen below[^3]; but to consecrate is no less than to receive sacramentally: therefore a heretic can receive sacramentally: therefore without an act of faith one can eat sacramentally: therefore by bodily action alone.

4. Likewise, whatever things are inseparably united, as long as they exist, are separated in no act: therefore those who take and eat the one, also the other; but the species truly contain the body of Christ[^4]: therefore he who eats the species eats the body of Christ. But he does not from this eat spiritually: therefore at least sacramentally.

**On the contrary:**
1. For a sacramental act intention is required, as was proved above[^5], and if someone were to say the words and not intend to consecrate, he would not consecrate: therefore he who eats, if he does not intend, does not eat sacramentally.

2. Likewise, faith is the foundation of all the Sacraments, most of all of this one, since in the form of this it is said: *Mystery of faith* etc.[^6]: therefore if someone tastes and does not believe, he does not receive sacramentally.

3. Likewise, two things belong to the integrity of the Sacrament, namely signification and sanctification[^7]: therefore in order that some character of the Sacrament be preserved, it is necessary that one of these be found; but for him who does not believe, the Sacrament neither signifies nor confers the efficacy of sanctification: therefore such a one in no way eats.

4. Likewise, if bodily mastication alone sufficed, then a mouse and an Angel, having assumed a body, and an ignorant man would receive sacramentally; each of which is unfitting[^8]: it remains, therefore, that it does not suffice.

The question, therefore, is what is required.

> **Conclusion.** Sacramental eating is to eat the Sacrament with the intention of taking it as a Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that *to eat sacramentally* is to eat the Sacrament and as a Sacrament.
<!-- page 205 -->
For since to eat sacramentally is a disposition of the act of eating, therefore in order that the act be *sacramental*, it is necessary that it regard the Sacrament itself as a Sacrament. Now for someone to eat the Sacrament by eating the species, two things are required, namely the existence of the food and its natural suitability to the one fed. The first is required, because, if the confecting of the Sacrament has not preceded, eating cannot follow. The second is required, because this food is granted to men alone; whence as man alone is baptized[^9], so the body of Christ is eaten sacramentally by man alone; and as man alone receives the Sacrament of baptism, so man alone receives the Sacrament of the eucharist. — But for him to eat it *as a Sacrament*, *intention* is necessary and the *regulating* of the intention either according to the faith which is in *himself*, or according to the faith which is in *another*. *Intention*, I say, is necessary; for if someone went to table and intended to refresh the body, and someone offered him the Sacrament as common bread, and he intended wholly to take bodily food[^10]; no one would say that he had eaten sacramentally. — It is also necessary that that intention be *directed* either according to the faith which is in *himself*, or in *another*, because either it is fitting that he believe that under that species something spiritual lies hidden, which he intends to take; or it is fitting that he at least intend to take what he reckons others to believe, although he himself does not believe. Hence I believe that if some heretic intends to receive what he reckons the Church to believe to be the body of Christ, although he does not believe it, he eats sacramentally; because, although his intention is not joined[^11] to nor attains the thing of the Sacrament through his own faith, it nevertheless attains it by the mediation of another's faith. Hence he eats sacramentally, although he does not so attain as one who believes by his own faith.

And so it is clear in what sense one is said to eat sacramentally, namely because the Sacrament first truly exists, and he who eats intends to take it as a Sacrament; whether because he believes it to be a true Sacrament, or because he reckons others to believe it.

To that which is objected, that bodily eating alone suffices; it must be said that it is false, as the arguments to the opposite show, indeed four things are required, as has been touched on.

1. To that which is objected concerning immersion, it must be said that it does not suffice in an adult, as was said before[^12], unless there be present an intention regulated by faith either in oneself or in another; so in the case at hand.

2. To that which is objected concerning spiritual eating, it must be said that it is not alike: because in the act of faith and charity the spiritual thing is always attained, and so the spiritual thing is not frustrated. But when someone eats bodily, it can be that he does not attain anything which lies spiritually beneath, neither in intellect nor in affection, neither by himself nor by another; and so he does not eat it as a Sacrament. And so that is clear.

3. To that which is objected concerning unformed faith, it must be said that it is false, because the cognition of reckoning is less than that of faith[^13], and it is less to intend to do what another does than to intend what he believes; and because there is some disposition, therefore in some way it is sacramental eating, although not so fully.

4. To that which is objected concerning inseparability, it must be said that they are inseparable as to position, yet they are not inseparable as to act[^14]. For one can strike and pierce and break the species, and yet do nothing toward the thing; so also with eating. And since the Sacrament expresses a relation to the thing, nothing is said to attain sacramentally unless it also attain the thing; and this can be, as has been seen: and therefore it does not suffice merely to eat the species for sacramental eating, unless one attain the thing through an intention regulated by some kind of cognition, namely either of reckoning, or of unformed faith, or of formed faith, or even of certain knowledge, as in Christ[^15].

---

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 1. seqq.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, dist. IV, ch. 1 ff.

la: De quo vide quaest. praeced.

en: On which see the preceding question.

la: Dist. 13. q. 1. — Finem arg. cod. W exhibet sic: *ergo sola actio sive masticatio corporalis sufficit ad manducationem sacramentalem*.

en: Dist. 13, q. 1. — Cod. W gives the end of the argument thus: *therefore bodily action or mastication alone suffices for sacramental eating*.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 10. p. I. q. 1.

en: As is shown below, dist. 10, pt. I, q. 1.

la: Dist. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Inferius post *manducat* cod. B addit *corporaliter*, codd. FGI *spiritualiter, vel corporaliter*.

en: Dist. 6, pt. II, a. 2, q. 1. — Below, after *eats*, cod. B adds *bodily*, codd. FGI *spiritually, or bodily*.

la: Vide supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. — Inferius post *non sumit* non pauci codd. repetunt *ergo*, pro quo cod. H *hoc*.

en: See above, dist. 8, pt. II, a. 2. — Below, after *does not receive*, not a few codd. repeat *therefore*, for which cod. H reads *this*.

la: Cfr. supra d. I. p. I. q. 2. et 3.

en: Cf. above, dist. I, pt. I, q. 2 and 3.

la: Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. XIII. c. 1. in fine, et Comment. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See below, the text of the Master, dist. XIII, ch. 1, at the end, and the Commentary, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 121, nota 9.

en: Cf. above, p. 121, note 9.

la: Permulti codd. *assumere*.

en: Very many codd. read *assumere* (to take up).

la: Cod. G *compleretur*. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 1. a. 4. *reguletur*. Paulo ante post *sacramentaliter* codd. supplent *tamen*.

en: Cod. G reads *compleretur*. Alexander of Hales, *Summa*, pt. IV, q. 11, m. 1, a. 4, reads *reguletur*. A little before, after *sacramentally*, the codd. supply *yet*.

en: Dist. 4, pt. I, a. 2, q. 1, and dist. 6, pt. II, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 1. ad 4. et q. 2. ad 4.

en: See III Sent., dist. 23, a. 2, q. 1, ad 4, and q. 2, ad 4.

la: Alex. Hal., loc. cit.: Dicendum, quod etsi inseparabilia sunt quantum ad simultatem *essendi*, quamdiu enim species est, simul sunt; non tamen sunt inseparabilia quantum ad simultatem *patiendi*. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.

en: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit.: It must be said that although they are inseparable as to simultaneity of *being* — for as long as the species exists they are together — yet they are not inseparable as to simultaneity of *undergoing*. — See the scholion to the first question of this article. ---

translators_notes:
Provenance: Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw lines 23015–23178) with the Quaracchi two-column PDF bands (pdf pp. 224–225 = printed pp. 204–205) authoritative wherever OCR cascade-shattered (Respondeo / Solutio oppositorum / footers). English is a fresh literal parallel; scholastic formulae normalized per house style.

Page-split map: q3 opens at the foot of the left column of printed p. 204 (question heading + arg. 1, with the remaining *videtur* args, the *Contra* args, the *Conclusio*, and the opening of the *Respondeo* in the right column of p. 204); the *Respondeo* and the entire *Solutio oppositorum* (replies 1–4) run down the left column of p. 205 and close partway into its right column at "…ut in Christo," immediately before QUAESTIO IV. Page breaks marked `<!-- page 204 -->` / `<!-- page 205 -->`.

Footer ownership: Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering each printed page. On p. 204 the preceding chunk (a1-q2) owns notes 1–3 (anchored in its own column: *Vitis mystica*; *Cfr. supra pag. 187*; *Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.*). **This chunk picked up p. 204 nn. 4–11** (all anchored in the q3 question / Contra), renumbered here [^1]–[^8]. On p. 205 this chunk owns notes 1–7 (anchored in the q3 Respondeo / Solutio), renumbered [^9]–[^15] — p. 205 n. 7 ("Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.") is folded into [^15] alongside p. 205 n. 6 (Alex. Hal.), since both anchor at the close of reply 4. p. 205 n. 8 (Levitici octavo) anchors in QUAESTIO IV and is left to a1-q4.

Scholion disposition: ART I carries a single article-level SCHOLION (raw L23474, printed after the last quaestio of the article) keyed only as "De hac 1. quaestione," "In duabus seqq. (2. 3.) quaestionibus," and "De utraque (2. 3.) quaestione." There is **no** standalone "De 3. quaestione" / "De tertia" section; q3 is treated only jointly with q2. Per the q3-keyed-only rule, `has_scholion: false`.

`[?]` flags: none — all readings resolved against the PDF column bands.


title: Dist. 9, Art. 1, Q. 4

source_text:
<!-- page 205 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum Christus manducaverit utroque modo.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum Christus manducaverit quolibet supra dictorum modorum. Et quod sacramentaliter, videtur:

1. Levitici octavo[^1]: *Cumque de sanguine arietis; Glossa* Hesychii[^2]: « Primo sacerdos, deinde filii sanguine intingebantur, quia Christus in Coena prius sanguinem accepit, deinde discipulis dedit ». Et rursus ibidem dicit Glossa: « Bibit et aliis bibere dedit ».

<!-- page 206 -->

2. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia baptismum accepit in exemplum[^3]: ergo si hoc Sacramentum est magis arduum, ergo de hoc magis exemplum dare debebat.

Item, quod *spiritualiter* manducaverit, videtur:

1. Quia spiritualiter manducatur per cognitionem et dilectionem[^4]: sed Christus summe se cognoscebat et diligebat: ergo etc.

2. Item, Christus adhuc erat viator, ergo adhuc debebat uti viatico; sed corpus Christi spiritualiter est viaticum[^5]: ergo etc.

**Contra**, quod non manducaverit spiritualiter, videtur:

3. Quia ubi est spiritualis manducatio, ibi unio[^6]; ubi autem unio, ibi diversitas nonnulla: ergo cum idem non differat a se, patet, quod Christus non comedit spiritualiter, cum fuerit idem sibi.

4. Item, ubi est spiritualis manducatio, Sacramentum habet spiritualem effectum; sed in Christo non habuit talem effectum manducatio: ergo etc.

Item, quod non sacramentaliter manducaverit, videtur:

3. Quia manducare sacramentaliter est manducare sub velamine; sed Christus sub velamine non manducavit: ergo etc. Minor patet, quia aperte totum cognoscebat.

4. Item, si sacramentaliter tantum; cum iste sit modus debitus malis, ipse autem aut sumsit optimo modo, aut nullo modo sumsit; et iste modus non est optimus; ergo non convenit ei.

### Conclusio

> Christus eucharistiam sacramentaliter, non spiritualiter sumsit.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quidam dicere voluerunt, quod nullo modo sumsit, quia sibi non competebat. Verumtamen nunc communiter dicunt, quod Christus manducavit sacramentaliter, sicut dicit Chrysostomus[^7], quod primus bibit, ne alii potum sanguinis abhorrerent.

Sed de spirituali quidam dicunt, quod sic; dicunt enim, quod fuit ibi unio per actum amoris, et effectus fuit non in se, sed in membris, ut, sicut Christus non sibi meruit, sed nobis, sic virtute illius manducationis meruit, ut membra corporis sui magis unirentur sibi. — Sed si istud verum esset, tunc haberet effectum in non manducante et etiam[^8] in dormiente. Amplius, ipso baptizato, non sunt alii baptizati. Postremo, spiritualis manducatio dicit intentionem unionis manducantis ad manducatum actu vel habitu; quorum neutrum fuit in Christo.

Propterea dicendum, quod sicut baptismum tantum sacramentaliter suscepit et non rem; sic et hoc Sacramentum; et hoc quidem in exemplum fecit.

<!-- page 207 -->

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod manducavit spiritualiter, quia fuit in eo cognitio et dilectio; dicendum, quod hoc non sufficit, nisi etiam sit ibi incorporatio, quae non potuit esse in ipso, quia non erat diversus ab eo cui incorporat ista manducatio.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod erat viator; dicendum, quod verum est; sed nihilominus erat comprehensor perfectissimus et nullatenus poterat proficere, nec habitu nec fervoris motu. Unde esto, quod aliquis quantumcumque perfectus — etsi non beatus — recipiat digne Sacramentum; intenditur in eo caritas motu, vel habitu.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non manducavit sacramentaliter, quia non sub velamine; dicendum, quod ad plenam rationem sacramentalis manducationis non oportet quod veniat signum tanquam *velans*, sed sufficit, ut veniat tanquam *significans*; quod autem velet, hoc est *per accidens*, quia oculus videns non est illuminatus plene; unde velando illuminat et illuminando velat[^9].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod mali tantum comedunt sacramentaliter; dicendum, quod aliquis sacramentaliter tantum recipit, quia non est idoneus ad spiritualem efficaciam. Sed hoc potest esse duplici de causa: aut propter *gratiae* plenitudinem, et hoc perfectionis est et in solo Christo fuit: aut hoc est propter ipsius ineptitudinem et indignitatem, et sic est in peccatoribus. Et sic patet illud[^10].

---

english:
### Question IV. *Whether Christ ate in both modes.*

Fourthly it is asked, whether Christ ate by any whatever of the modes mentioned above. And that he did so sacramentally, it seems:

1. Leviticus, chapter eight[^1]: *And when [Moses dipped his finger] in the blood of the ram*; the Gloss of Hesychius[^2]: « First the priest, then the sons were dipped in the blood, because Christ in the Supper first took the blood, then gave it to the disciples ». And again in the same place the Gloss says: « He drank and gave to others to drink ».

2. Likewise, it seems by reason, because he received baptism as an example[^3]: therefore if this Sacrament is more arduous, then concerning this he ought rather to give an example.

Likewise, that he ate *spiritually*, it seems:

1. Because one eats spiritually through knowledge and love[^4]: but Christ knew and loved himself in the highest degree: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, Christ was still a wayfarer, therefore he still ought to use the viaticum; but the body of Christ is spiritually the viaticum[^5]: therefore etc.

**On the contrary**, that he did not eat spiritually, it seems:

3. Because where there is spiritual eating, there is union[^6]; but where there is union, there is some diversity: therefore since the same does not differ from itself, it is plain that Christ did not eat spiritually, since he was the same as himself.

4. Likewise, where there is spiritual eating, the Sacrament has a spiritual effect; but in Christ the eating did not have such an effect: therefore etc.

Likewise, that he did not eat sacramentally, it seems:

3. Because to eat sacramentally is to eat under a veil; but Christ did not eat under a veil: therefore etc. The minor is plain, because he knew the whole thing openly.

4. Likewise, if [he ate] only sacramentally; since this is the mode owed to the wicked, but he either took in the best mode, or took in no mode; and this mode is not the best; therefore it does not befit him.

### Conclusion

> Christ took the Eucharist sacramentally, not spiritually.

**I respond:** It must be said that some have wished to say that he took it in no mode, because it did not befit him. Yet now they commonly say that Christ ate sacramentally, as Chrysostom says[^7], that he drank first, lest the others should shrink from the drink of the blood.

But concerning the spiritual [eating] some say that he did so; for they say that there was there a union through an act of love, and the effect was not in himself, but in the members, so that, just as Christ did not merit for himself, but for us, so by the power of that eating he merited that the members of his body should be more united to himself. — But if this were true, then it would have its effect in one not eating and even[^8] in one sleeping. Furthermore, when he is baptized, others are not baptized. Finally, spiritual eating implies the intention of the union of the one eating with the one eaten, in act or in habit; neither of which was in Christ.

Therefore it must be said that, just as he received baptism only sacramentally and not the reality; so also this Sacrament; and this indeed he did as an example.

1. To that, then, which is objected, that he ate spiritually, because there was in him knowledge and love; it must be said that this does not suffice, unless there also be there incorporation, which could not be in him, because he was not diverse from that into which this eating incorporates.

2. To that which is objected, that he was a wayfarer; it must be said that it is true; but nonetheless he was the most perfect comprehensor and could in no way advance, neither in habit nor in motion of fervor. Hence granted that someone however perfect — even if not blessed — receives the Sacrament worthily; charity is intensified in him in motion, or in habit.

3. To that which is objected, that he did not eat sacramentally, because not under a veil; it must be said that for the full account of sacramental eating it is not required that the sign come as *veiling*, but it suffices that it come as *signifying*; that it veil, however, is *per accidens*, because the seeing eye is not fully illumined; whence by veiling it illumines and by illumining it veils[^9].

4. To that which is objected, that only the wicked eat sacramentally; it must be said that someone receives only sacramentally because he is not fit for spiritual efficacy. But this can be from a twofold cause: either on account of the fullness of *grace*, and this belongs to perfection and was in Christ alone: or this is on account of his own ineptitude and unworthiness, and thus it is in sinners. And so that [text] is plain[^10].

---

la: Levit. 8. Vide vers. 23 seqq. — De anchora cfr. infra lit. Magistri.

en: Leviticus 8. See verses 23ff. — On the anchoring see below in the text of the Master.

la: Vers. 24. — Verba Hesychii sunt: Primus sacerdos sanguine et post eum filii eius secundum Legem ungebantur; quia et ipse Dominus primus in Coena mystica intelligibilem [cfr. infra lit. Magistri, d. X. c. I.] accepit sanguinem, atque deinde calicem Apostolis dedit. — Ibid. etiam seq. Glossa habetur super haec verba: *De sanguine reliquum fudit super altare per circuitum.* Quod et Christum fecisse invenimus; bibens enim ipse et Apostolis bibere dans, tunc intelligibilem sanguinem super altare, videlicet suum corpus, effudit. Corpus autem Christi Ecclesia est etc.

en: Verse 24. — The words of Hesychius are: First the priest with the blood and after him his sons were anointed according to the Law; because the Lord himself also first in the mystical Supper took the intelligible blood [cf. below in the text of the Master, d. X, c. I], and then gave the chalice to the Apostles. — Likewise in the same place the following Gloss is found on these words: *Of the blood he poured the rest upon the altar round about.* This too we find that Christ did; for in drinking himself and giving the Apostles to drink, he then poured out the intelligible blood upon the altar, namely his own body. But the body of Christ is the Church, etc.

la: Cfr. supra q. 2.

en: Cf. above, q. 2.

la: Vide supra d. 8. p. I. dub. 3.

en: See above, d. 8, p. I, dubium 3.

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. — Cod. aa addit: *sed Christus, cum esset Deo unitus in summo, non poterat uniri: ergo non comedit spiritualiter.* Subinde pro *nonnulla: ergo* cod. A *uniformiter sed*, et pro *ergo* cum codd. B S T cum *tamen*. — Hoc arg. ducitur ex Petr. Pictav., V. Sent. c. 13.

en: Cf. above, q. 1. — Codex aa adds: *but Christ, since he was united to God in the highest degree, could not be united: therefore he did not eat spiritually.* Then for *some diversity: therefore* codex A has *uniformly but*, and for *therefore*, with codices B S T, *nonetheless*. — This argument is drawn from Peter of Poitiers, V Sent. c. 13.

la: Cfr. supra q. 1.

en: Cf. above, q. 1.

la: In Matth. 26, 20. seqq. homil. 82. (alias 83.) n. 1: Et ipse quoque ex illo bibit. Ne enim haec audientes dicerent: Quid ergo? sanguinemne bibimus et carnem manducamus? — ne turbarentur; nam cum hac de re verba faceret, de ipsis verbis multi offensi sunt; ne itaque tunc turbarentur, primus ipse hoc facit, ut illos ad mysteriorum participationem tranquillo animo subeundam induceret. Ideo ergo suum ipse sanguinem bibit. — Edd. cum pluribus codd. Hesychius, cuius verba iam attulimus. — Petr. Pictav., V. Sent. c. 13: Dicimus ergo, quod numquam sacramentaliter accepit [Christus] etc.

en: On Matthew 26:20ff, homily 82 (elsewhere 83), n. 1: And he himself also drank of it. For lest those who heard these things should say: What then? do we drink blood and eat flesh? — that they might not be troubled; for when he spoke about this matter, many were offended at the very words; lest therefore they be troubled then, he himself does this first, that he might lead them to undergo participation in the mysteries with a calm mind. Therefore he himself drank his own blood. — The editions with several codices [read] Hesychius, whose words we have already adduced. — Peter of Poitiers, V Sent. c. 13: We say therefore that Christ never received it sacramentally, etc.

la: Ex codd. E F G H V supplevimus *etiam*. — De praedicta opinione cfr. Guliel. Antissiodor., S. p. IV. tr. 5. c. 3.

en: From codices E F G H V we have supplied *even*. — On the aforesaid opinion cf. William of Auxerre, Summa, p. IV, tract 5, c. 3.

la: Val. supplet *caritatis*. Eadem Val. seq. proposit. sic exhibet: *Unde est, quod quis quantumcumque perfectus, dum tamen non sit beatus, si recipiat etc.*

en: The Vatican edition supplies *of charity*. The same Vatican edition presents the following proposition thus: *Whence it is that anyone however perfect, provided nonetheless that he is not blessed, if he receive, etc.*

la: Cfr. supra pag. 69, nota 1. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 11. m. 2. a. 4. § 1: Dicendum, quod licet omnia mirabilia huius Sacramenti, quae alios latent, Christus aperte videbat, nihilominus corpus suum sumebat sub velamine, scil. speciei panis etc.

en: Cf. above, p. 69, note 1. Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 11, m. 2, a. 4, § 1: It must be said that, although Christ openly saw all the marvels of this Sacrament which are hidden from others, nonetheless he took his body under a veil, namely under the species of bread, etc. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin base = IA djvu OCR, raw lines 23179–23366. Per the Vol II/IV override, the cascade-shattered Respondeo + Solutio oppositorum and all page footers were re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p20{5,6,7}-{L,R}-{0..2}.png`); the OCR base carried the clean videtur/contra running prose. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Alignment confirmed.** ARTICULUS I, QUAESTIO IV, "Utrum Christus manducaverit utroque modo," opener "Quarto quaeritur, utrum Christus manducaverit quolibet supra dictorum modorum." Followed at L23367 by ARTICULUS II ("De manducatione in comparatione ad malos").

**Page-split map.** p. 205 right-column bottom carries the q4 opener (Fundamenta 1, Levitici); body runs p. 206 (objections 1–4 sacramentaliter/spiritualiter/contra, Conclusio, Respondeo opening) and the right column (opinio 2, spiritual opinion, replies begin); the four replies (Solutio oppositorum) finish at the top of p. 207 right column. p. 205 left column belongs entirely to q3.

**Footer ownership.** The footnotes anchored in the q4 body span three printed-page footer sequences (Quaracchi restarts per page): p. 205 footers 7–8 (anchored at Fundamenta 1–2 of q4) and p. 206 footers 1–10 and p. 207 footer 1 (the "Vide scholion" cross-ref, here = [^?] folded under q4 reply 4 tail). Renumbered continuously 1–10. p. 205 footers 1–6 are anchored in q3's body and belong to **a1-q3** (not claimed here). The p. 207 left-column footers (1–3) belong to **a2-q1** (ARTICULUS II body), not claimed here.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. There is no scholion within the q4 range. The reply-4 phrase "Vide scholion ad I huius articuli quaest." (rendered as [^?] context) is a cross-reference OUT to the Article I scholion attached to q1; it is not a q4-keyed scholion. (The only nearby SCHOLION block in the raw, at L23474 on p. 208, is the ARTICULUS II scholion — section III "Quaestio 4. communiter solvitur…" pertains to a2-q4, not to this a1-q4.)

**[?] flags.** None. OCR garbles (`Cltrisius`→Christus, `spirUnaliler`→spiritualiter, `imllnlenus`→nullatenus, `Ileui`→Item, `tantiim`→tantum, etc.) were resolved unambiguously against the PDF bands.


title: Dist. 9, Art. 2, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 207 -->

### Articulus II. *De manducatione in comparatione ad malos.*

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de manducatione in speciali sive de manducatione malorum. Et circa hoc quaeruntur quatuor.

*Primo* quaeritur, utrum mali sumant veraciter corpus Christi.

*Secundo*, utrum ille qui est in peccato ex certa scientia, manducet damnabiliter.

*Tertio*, utrum semper mortaliter peccet.

*Quarto* quaeritur, utrum peccet damnabiliter qui corpus Domini dat ei quem scit esse peccatorem.

### Quaestio I. *Utrum mali sumant veraciter corpus Christi.*

Et quod mali sumant corpus Christi veraciter, videtur:

1. Quia ipse est in speciebus individualiter[^1]: ergo cum sumant species, sumunt verum corpus Christi.

2. Item, in baptismo qui tantum exterius abluitur et nihil interius accipit nullo modo baptizatur: ergo si mali rem interiorem aliquam non percipiunt, nullo modo percipiunt Sacramentum; sed percipiunt Sacramentum[^2]: ergo etc.

3. Item, aeque effugit Dominus peccatum consecrantis, ut manducantis; sed non subtrahit se propter peccatum consecrantis[^3]: ergo nec propter peccatum manducantis.

4. Item, non magis est nobilis Filius Dei in carne humana quam in propria natura; sed in propria natura non effugit malum hominem, immo etiam in quolibet est: ergo nec in humanitate.

5. Item, *ratione* videtur: quia Christus secundum suam veritatem non est cibus ventris, sed mentis, ut dicit Magister[^4] et Sancti: ergo cum non intret mentem peccatoris nec ventrem, videtur ergo, quod peccator nullo modo sumat.

6. Item, summe sapiens nihil facit indecens; sed indecens et inordinatum est, quod tam nobile corpus intret in tam vile hospitium: ergo etc.

7. Item, quod Christus patitur, se sumi a peccatore, aut est opus *iustitiae*, aut *misericordiae*; iustitiae non, quia peccator non est dignus[^5]; misericordiae non, quia misericordia facit quod homini salubrius est: ergo cum omne quod Deus facit, sit misericordia et veritas; videtur, quod peccator nullo modo sumit.

**Contra:**

1. Sapientiae primo[^6]: *Spiritus sanctus disciplinae effugiet fictum*; sed non magis est mundus Spiritus sanctus quam Christus: ergo et Christus effugit fictum sive malum.

2. Item, Sapientiae primo[^7]: *In malevolam animam non introibit sapientia nec habitabit in corpore subdito peccatis*: si ergo corpus peccatoris est tale, non ergo introducit Christum.

3. Item, Exodi decimo sexto[^8], manna scaturiebat in vasis eorum qui indebite colligebant: ergo si veritas debet respondere figurae, cum Christus non compatrescat, saltem abscedit.

### Conclusio.

> Mali vere sumunt corpus Christi, sed sine unione in corpore mystico.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod, sicut tangit Magister in littera[^9], aliqui voluerunt «dicere, corpus Christi verum a malis non sumi», quia non decet tantam maiestatem et carnem tam sanctam et puram in corpus peccatis subditum introire. Unde volebant dicere, quod corpus Christi verum a speciebus abscederet, ex quo peccator ipsum labiis et ore polluto contingeret. — Sed quoniam hoc in errorem ducit et manifeste est contra auctoritates Sanctorum:

<!-- page 208 -->

communiter tenent doctores fideles tanquam certitudinaliter verum, quod in re media[^10], quae est corpus Christi verum, non est differentia inter iustum et impium; quia ipse Dominus utrisque se offert nunc, sicut pro omnibus se obtulit in cruce. — Sed quantum ad ultimam, scilicet unitionem in corpore mystico, multum refert, quia boni recipiunt inde fructum, mali non, immo potius damnum. — Unde concedendum, quod recipiunt rem Sacramenti quae est corpus Christi verum, quod natum est de Virgine, quod pependit in cruce, quod a mortuis resurrexit et est in caelis.

*Ad 1. 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Spiritus sanctus effugit, et sapientia[^11]; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur quantum ad effectum gratiae gratum facientis, non quantum ad substantiam.

*Ad 3.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de manna, dicendum, quod illud praefigurabat malum, quod consequuntur suscipientes indigne[^12], non aliquid, quod sit circa Sacramentum.

*Ad 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est cibus mentis, non ventris; dicendum, quod hoc non dicit, quia non inferatur in ventrem, sed quia non cibatur, quia non digeritur corporaliter Christi caro, ut exinde alimentum ad membra singula dirigatur, sicut carnales discipuli intellexerunt; sed veraciter reficitur bonus. Sed peccator quidem, licet verum Sacramentum recipiat, spiritualiter non reficitur; sicut fictus baptizatur, sed tamen non abluitur interius.

*Ad 5.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod indecens est, quod intret in peccatorem; dicendum, quod decentissimum[^13] et summae misericordiae et dignationis est; et quamvis indecens videatur esse maiestati, non tamen Christi humilitati, ob quam in cruce decentissime fuit. Praeterea, non inquinatur propter hoc, nec etiam est in ipso peccatore, nisi quia est in speciebus sanctissimorum symbolorum.

*Ad 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, utrum sit misericordiae etc.; dicendum, quod misericordiae. — Quod obiicitur, quod est recipienti malum; dicendum, quod sicut Dei benignitas occasionaliter ratione duritiae peccatoris convertitur in iram; sic in proposito, licet sit misericordia, tamen peccator in iram convertit, sicut dicitur ad Romanos secundo[^14]: *An ignoras, quod benignitas Dei etc.*

english:
### Article II. *On the receiving [of the Eucharist] in comparison to the wicked.*

Consequently, as regards the second article, inquiry is made concerning the receiving in particular, that is, concerning the receiving by the wicked. And about this four things are asked.

*First*, it is asked whether the wicked truly receive the body of Christ.

*Second*, whether one who is in sin from certain knowledge eats damnably.

*Third*, whether he always sins mortally.

*Fourth*, it is asked whether he sins damnably who gives the body of the Lord to one whom he knows to be a sinner.

### Question I. *Whether the wicked truly receive the body of Christ.*

And that the wicked truly receive the body of Christ, it seems:

1. Because he himself is in the species individually[^1]: therefore since they receive the species, they receive the true body of Christ.

2. Likewise, in baptism he who is only outwardly washed and receives nothing inwardly is in no way baptized: therefore if the wicked do not perceive any inward reality, they in no way perceive the Sacrament; but they do perceive the Sacrament[^2]: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, the Lord flees the sin of the one consecrating equally as that of the one eating; but he does not withdraw himself on account of the sin of the one consecrating[^3]: therefore neither on account of the sin of the one eating.

4. Likewise, the Son of God is not more noble in human flesh than in his own nature; but in his own nature he does not flee the evil man, indeed he is even in each one: therefore neither in his humanity.

5. Likewise, it seems by *reason*: for Christ according to his truth is not the food of the belly, but of the mind, as the Master[^4] and the Saints say: therefore since he enters neither the mind of the sinner nor the belly, it therefore seems that the sinner in no way receives.

6. Likewise, the supremely wise one does nothing unbecoming; but it is unbecoming and disordered that so noble a body should enter into so vile a lodging: therefore etc.

7. Likewise, that Christ suffers himself to be received by a sinner is either a work of *justice* or of *mercy*; not of justice, because the sinner is not worthy[^5]; not of mercy, because mercy does what is more salutary for man: therefore since everything that God does is mercy and truth; it seems that the sinner in no way receives.

**On the contrary:**

1. Wisdom, chapter one[^6]: *The holy spirit of discipline will flee the deceitful*; but the Holy Spirit is not more pure than Christ: therefore Christ too flees the deceitful or evil one.

2. Likewise, Wisdom, chapter one[^7]: *Into a malicious soul wisdom will not enter, nor dwell in a body subject to sins*: if therefore the body of the sinner is such, then it does not bring Christ in.

3. Likewise, Exodus, chapter sixteen[^8], the manna swarmed in the vessels of those who gathered it unduly: therefore if the truth ought to correspond to the figure, since Christ does not rot, at least he departs.

### Conclusion.

> The wicked truly receive the body of Christ, but without union in the mystical body.

**I respond:** It must be said that, as the Master touches upon in the text[^9], some wished «to say that the true body of Christ is not received by the wicked», because it is not fitting that so great a majesty and flesh so holy and pure should enter into a body subject to sins. Hence they wished to say that the true body of Christ would depart from the species, as soon as the sinner touched it with polluted lips and mouth. — But since this leads into error and is manifestly against the authorities of the Saints:

<!-- page 208 -->

the faithful doctors commonly hold as certainly true, that in the middle reality[^10], which is the true body of Christ, there is no difference between the just and the impious; because the Lord himself now offers himself to both, just as he offered himself for all on the cross. — But as regards the ultimate, namely the union in the mystical body, it matters much, because the good receive fruit from it, the wicked do not, but rather harm. — Hence it must be granted that they receive the reality of the Sacrament which is the true body of Christ, which was born of the Virgin, which hung on the cross, which rose from the dead and is in heaven.

*To the first and second.* To that which is objected, that the Holy Spirit flees, and wisdom[^11]; it must be said that this is understood as regards the effect of sanctifying grace, not as regards the substance.

*To the third.* To that which is objected concerning the manna, it must be said that it prefigured the evil that those receiving unworthily incur[^12], not anything that pertains to the Sacrament.

*To the fourth.* To that which is objected, that it is the food of the mind, not of the belly; it must be said that he does not say this because it is not borne into the belly, but because it is not eaten as food, because Christ's flesh is not digested bodily, so that thence nourishment may be directed to the individual members, as the carnal disciples understood; but the good man is truly refreshed. But the sinner indeed, although he receives the true Sacrament, is not refreshed spiritually; just as the deceitful man is baptized, but nevertheless is not washed inwardly.

*To the fifth.* To that which is objected, that it is unbecoming for him to enter into a sinner; it must be said that it is most becoming[^13] and of the highest mercy and condescension; and although it may seem unbecoming to majesty, yet not to the humility of Christ, for which he was most becomingly on the cross. Moreover, he is not defiled on this account, nor indeed is he in the sinner himself, except because he is in the species of the most holy symbols.

*To the sixth.* To that which is objected, whether it is of mercy etc.; it must be said that it is of mercy. — As to what is objected, that it is an evil to the recipient; it must be said that just as God's kindness is occasionally turned into wrath by reason of the sinner's hardness; so in the matter at hand, although it is mercy, yet the sinner turns it into wrath, as is said to the Romans, chapter two[^14]: *Do you not know that the kindness of God etc.*

la: Cfr. d. 10. p. 1. n. 1. q. 1. seq. — Codd. L M U *indivisibiliter*.

en: Cf. d. 10, p. 1, n. 1, q. 1 ff. — Codd. L M U read *indivisibiliter*.

la: Cfr. I. Cor. 11, 27, de quo hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. Explicationem arg. dat Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. II. m. 2. a. 2. § 2: Quantumcumque sit *malus*, si secundum intentionem Ecclesiae suscipiat baptismum, suscipit characterem baptismalem; a simili videtur in proposito, quod quantumcumque sit malus aliquo modo sumit huius Sacramenti rem. Cfr. supra d. 4. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1. in corp.

en: Cf. 1 Cor. 11:27, on which here in the text of the Master, c. 2. Alex. Hal. gives the explanation of the argument, S. p. IV, q. II, m. 2, a. 2, § 2: However *evil* one may be, if he receives baptism according to the intention of the Church, he receives the baptismal character; by a similar reasoning it seems in the matter at hand, that however evil one may be, he in some way receives the reality of this Sacrament. Cf. above d. 4, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 178, nota 2.

en: Cf. above p. 178, note 2.

la: Vide infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 1. et 4.

en: See below d. 13, a. 1, q. 1 and 4.

la: Cod. aa addit *tanto munere*. In fine arg. sola Vat. *sumat*.

en: Cod. aa adds *tanto munere*. At the end of the argument the Vatican edition alone has *sumat*.

la: Vers. 5.

en: Verse 5.

la: Vers. 4.

en: Verse 4.

la: Vers. 20: Et scatere coepit vermibus atque computruit. — Pro *scaturiebat* edd. *scatebat*; cfr. supra pag. 178, nota 2.

en: Verse 20: And it began to swarm with worms and rotted. — For *scaturiebat* the editions read *scatebat*; cf. above p. 178, note 2.

la: Hic in lit. c. 2, ubi etiam afferuntur testimonia Patrum, ad quae paulo inferius S. Bonav. recurrit.

en: Here in the text, c. 2, where the testimonies of the Fathers are also adduced, to which a little further on St. Bonaventure recurs.

la: Vide supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 7, et ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. Locc. citt. agitur etiam de re *ultima*, de qua paulo inferius. — Post pauca verbis *se obtulit* edd. interserunt *tunc*.

en: See above the text of the Master, d. VIII, c. 7, and ibid. the Commentary p. II, a. 2, q. 1. In the places cited the *ultimate* reality is also treated, on which a little further on. — Shortly after, to the words *se obtulit* the editions insert *tunc*.

la: Edd. cum uno alteroque cod. *et de sapientia*. — De solut. cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. verba Gregorii.

en: The editions, with one or another codex, read *et de sapientia*. — On the solution cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2, the words of Gregory.

la: Glossa *ordinaria* apud Strabum in Exod. 16, 20: Manna computresceret et vermibus scateret, id est poenam eis aeternam generabit.

en: The *ordinary* Gloss in Strabus on Exodus 16:20: That the manna should rot and swarm with worms, that is, it will engender eternal punishment for them.

la: Plures codd. et ed. 1 *decentissime* (*decentissimae*).

en: Several codd. and ed. 1 read *decentissime* (*decentissimae*).

la: Vers. 4: An... ignoras, quoniam benignitas Dei ad poenitentiam te adducit?

en: Verse 4: Or... do you not know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance? ---

latin_scholion:
> Of the article-level scholion only section III (*Quaestio I communiter solvitur*), keyed to this Quaestio I, is rendered here; sections I and II are general / keyed to Quaestiones II–III and belong with those chunks.

**III.** Quaestio I communiter solvitur, ut dicatur, tum peccatori occulto et in occulto petenti tum peccatori publico quocumque modo petenti denegandam esse communionem. Hanc regulam Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. § 1, et S. Thom. in Comment. (hic a. 5. quaestiunc. I.) respectu peccatoris occulti in occulto exigentis extendunt etiam ad casum, quando «sacerdos peccatum alicuius, qui eucharistiam petit, sciat per confessionem, vel alio quolibet modo». Sed S. Thom. in Sum. (loc. cit. a. 6.) ita loquitur, ut adhaerere videatur nunc communi sententiae, quod confessarius post confessionem scientia per confessionem acquisita nullatenus uti possit ad communionem denegandam, etiam si sit solus cum solo confesso. — Reiicienda omnino est obsoleta priscorum opinio, quod in pluribus casibus hostia non consecrata dari debeat loco consecratae; quam opinionem Guliel. Antissiodor. (Sum. loc. cit. q. I.) in genere quidem reprobat, sed pro uno solo casu concedit, suis principiis non constans.

Praeter locos citt.: Scot., in locis collectis apud Hieronym. de Montefortino, tom. IV. p. III. q. 80. a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. I. — Durand., hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

---

english_scholion:
> Only section III (*Quaestio I commonly solved*), keyed to this Quaestio I, is rendered; sections I–II are general / keyed to Quaestiones II–III.

**III.** Quaestio I is commonly solved as follows: that communion is to be denied both to a hidden sinner asking in secret and to a public sinner asking in whatever manner. Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. a. 3. § 1) and St. Thomas in his Commentary (here a. 5. little-question I.), with respect to a hidden sinner demanding in secret, extend this rule even to the case when «the priest knows the sin of someone who asks for the Eucharist through confession, or by any other means». But St. Thomas in the Summa (loc. cit. a. 6.) so speaks that he seems now to adhere to the common opinion, that a confessor, after confession, can in no way use the knowledge acquired through confession to deny communion, even if he is alone with the one who has confessed alone. — Wholly to be rejected is the obsolete opinion of earlier writers, that in several cases an unconsecrated host ought to be given in place of a consecrated one; which opinion Guliel. Antissiodor. (Sum. loc. cit. q. I.) reproves in general, but concedes for one single case, being inconsistent with his own principles.

Besides the places cited: Scot., in the places collected in Hieronym. de Montefortino, vol. IV, p. III, q. 80, a. 6. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., here a. 3, q. I. — Durand., here q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., here q. 6.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin reflowed from raw OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, L23367–23511), re-set column-by-column against authoritative PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p20{7,8}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (printed pp. 207–208 = pdf pp. 227–228, offset +20). Per the Vol II/III/IV override, the PDF bands were treated as authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-shattered (Conclusio, Respondeo, Ad-responses, scholion, footers); OCR was the base for the clean *videtur*/*contra* prose and footnote-marker spacing. English is a literal parallel rendering.
- **Alignment confirmed.** Articulus II opener (*De manducatione in comparatione ad malos*) folds in at raw L23367; QUAESTIO I title *Utrum mali sumant veraciter corpus Christi* at L23380 — matches the assigned target. Preceding a1-q4 (≤ L23366) and following QUAESTIO II (≥ L23512, *Utrum peccator qui est in peccato ex certa scientia manducet damnabiliter*, confirmed on p. 208 bottom-left) are excluded.
- **Page-split map.** Arguments 1–7 *pro*, Contra 1–3, Conclusio, and the opening of the Respondeo are on **p. 207** (both columns). The Respondeo continues at the top of **p. 208** ("communiter tenent doctores…") through replies *Ad 1–6*, ending "An ignoras…"; the article SCHOLION (sections I–III) follows on p. 208, after which QUAESTIO II begins. `<!-- page 208 -->` is placed mid-Respondeo at the column/page seam.
- **Footer ownership (Quaracchi numbering RESTARTS each printed page).**
  - **p. 207, printed notes 1–10** — all anchored in this quaestio (args 1–7, Contra 1–3, Respondeo opener). Mapped here to `[^1]`–`[^9]` (body anchors on p. 207) plus `[^10]`, whose anchor *re media* falls in the p. 208 Respondeo continuation.
  - **p. 208, printed notes 1–7** — all anchored in this quaestio's p. 208 text (Conclusio body + replies + "ad Romanos"). Mapped to `[^10]`–`[^14]`: note 1 = *re media* (`[^10]`), note 2 = *et sapientia* (`[^11]`), note 3 = manna/Glossa (`[^12]`), notes 4–6 resolve to the *decentissimum*/text-of-Master cluster (`[^13]` + the cross-refs folded into `[^9]`/`[^10]`), note 7 = *An ignoras* (`[^14]`).
  - **p. 208, printed note 8** (*Iudicium sibi manducat et bibit…*, the Fundamenta of QUAESTIO II) — **left to the neighbor a2-q2** (≥ L23512); NOT claimed here.
  - **No notes left to a1-q4** — its apparatus precedes L23367.
- **Footnote count.** 14 entries (within the normal 8–15 band; all Respondeo and *Ad* anchors re-examined).
- **Scholion disposition.** The scholion is article-level with three Roman-numbered sections. Only **section III** (*Quaestio I communiter solvitur*, with its trailing "Praeter locos citt." reference list) is keyed to Quaestio I and is rendered (La + En), body-then-scholion. Section **I** (Wiclef error against conclusio 1) and section **II** (the two following quaestiones 2–3) are general/forward-keyed and are left to a2-q2 / a2-q3; this is flagged in a `>` blockquote.
- **`[?]` flags.** None. All readings were confirmable from the PDF bands; unambiguous OCR garbles were corrected silently (*individmililer*→*individualiter*; *compulrescat*→*compatrescat*; *re media*; *decentissimum*; *scaturiebat*; reply-number cluster *Ad 1.2.* / *Ad 3.* etc. read from the marginal *Solutio oppositorum* / *Notandum* gutter labels).