title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5

title_alt: Utrum haec conversio sit subita, an successiva

source_text:
<!-- page 248 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum haec conversio sit subita, vel successiva.*

Quinto quaeritur, utrum haec conversio sit subita, an successiva. Et quod sit *subita*, videtur:

1. Quia successio est per resistentiam suscipientis, ut patet in diffusione lucis in aëra, quia nihil resistens[^1]; sed ex parte panis nulla est resistentia: ergo nec successio aliqua.

2. Item, « quantum operatio est a virtute potentiori, tanto velocior », ut patet in sexto Physicorum[^2]; sed haec est a virtute infinita: ergo est in instanti.

3. Item, non ob aliud est successio in operatione nisi propter praeparationem et inductionem proprietatum[^3]; sed hic nulla est praeparatio: ergo nulla successio.

4. Item, si successio, aut haec est, quia panis successive abiicitur, aut quia corpus successive introducitur.

<!-- page 249 -->

Non quia panis; quia non est ponere, quare citius convertatur una pars quam alia, nec materia quam forma. Nec quia Christi *corpus*; quia illud non potest habere nisi *esse* perfectum et integrum.

**Contra:**

1. Etsi divina virtus ibi immediate operetur, operatur tamen ad verbi prolationem[^4]; sed verbi prolatio est successiva: ergo et conversio.

2. Item, si dicas, quod non operatur *per sermonem*; tamen *simul* operatur cum sermone, quia nec ante nec post; sed[^5] sermonis prolatio est successiva: ergo cum successivum non sit simul cum instantaneo, patet etc.

3. Item, si conversio est in instanti, quaero, in illo instanti, in quo est mutatio, quid sit; aut *panis*, aut *corpus*[^6]. Non panis, quia panis est terminus *a quo*; non corpus, quia est terminus, *ad quem* est mutatio; nec *aliquid aliud*: ergo nihil; sed hoc est impossibile: ergo mutatio non fit in instanti.

4. Item, panis in illa conversione habet *esse* ultimum, similiter corpus Christi primum; aut in *eodem instanti*, aut in *alio*. Si in *eodem*: ergo simul est panis et corpus. Si in *alio et alio*; sed inter quaelibet duo instantia cadit tempus medium[^7], et in illo medio est conversio: ergo etc.

> **CONCLUSIO.**
>
> Conversio panis in verum Christi corpus fit in instanti, non successive.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod haec conversio est subito et in instanti. Quamvis enim fiat ad verbi prolationem, non tamen per verbum sicut per effectivum principium, sed per Verbum increatum[^8], quod operatur in instanti.

2. Quod ergo obiicit, quod non sunt simul, dicendum, quod successivum non est simul cum instantaneo secundum totum nec secundum partem, sed tamen secundum aliquid sui, ut puta factum vel dictum esse, quod est vel in ratione medii, vel principii, vel finis. Unde certum est, quod quando totum dictum est, totum factum est; sed quando Dominus facit, ipse novit[^9].

3. Ad illud vero quod obiicitur de illo instanti, utrum sit panis; dicendum, quod in mutatione subita simul est *fieri* et *factum esse*, et simul *desinere* et *desiisse*; quia ergo in instanti desinit esse panis, non est panis. *Rursus*, quia incipit esse corpus vel convertitur in corpus, est corpus Christi.

4. Ad illud vero quod quaeritur de ultimo *esse* panis, multiplex est positio.

Quidam enim dicunt, quod quia panis habet *esse* temporale, sed corpus Christi *esse* aeternum, quod ultimum *esse* panis non est nisi in tempore, primum *esse* corporis in instanti. Unde sicut instans copulatur ad tempus, ita quod nihil est medium; sic et in proposito habere se dicunt. — Sed hoc est non probabilis fuga: primum, quia, si panis nunquam haberet esse in instanti, maneret obiectio, et non est hic solutio. Secundo, quia quod corpus Christi sit in altari vel sub speciebus, hoc est temporale. Tertio vero, quia utrumque habet *esse* permanens, et ideo *esse* utriusque est in instanti.

Propterea est alia positio, quod in eodem instanti est ultimo *esse panem* et primo *esse corpus*, eodem, inquam, secundum *substantiam*, differente secundum *rationem*; quia secundum quod est mensura ultimi *esse* panis, est terminus *praeteriti*, secundum quod primi *esse corporis*, est principium *futuri*. — Sed haec positio non potest stare, quia quaecumque sit diversitas in ratione in uno instanti, nunquam contradictoria sunt simul vera in eodem: ergo nec *disparata* de eodem. Et *praeterea*, si *praeteritum* in sui termino esset, et *futurum* esset in sui initio; nunquam continuarentur per unum instans, immo essent simul.

Propterea est tertia positio, quod est in uno instanti secundum *rem*, sed plura secundum *virtutem*. Sicut enim unus punctus fit duo puncta divisione lineae et commensuratione, ut puta si duarum linearum fiat contiguatio super lineam continuam substratam; ille unus punctus, ad quem contiguantur, aequivalet *duobus*: sic in instanti, quamvis non multiplicetur, quia tempus non dividitur, tamen *duobus* aequivalet propter commensurationem duorum ultimorum, durationis scilicet panis et corporis. — Sed illud non potest stare, quia in *contiguis* ultima simul sunt; sed in *durationibus*, quae se habent secundum prius et posterius,

<!-- page 250 -->

impossibile est, quod ultima sint simul; unde in illa *contiguatione* punctus substratus non *fit duo*, sed duo puncta *uniuntur in uno*, nec tamen *cedunt* in unum propter distinctionem corporum, in quibus sunt. Et *iterum*, quantumcumque illud verum sit, quod duo *indivisibilia* sint simul, nunquam tamen verum est, quod duo *contradictorie opposita* simul insint eidem, quia sunt incompossibilia; nec etiam ea quae necessario requirunt ordinem, non tantum *causaliter* sive secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum *esse* in actu et durationem actualem.

Propterea est quarta positio, quod est in *alio et alio* instanti secundum *rem*, eo modo, quo in tempore est ponere instantia multa; quia *unum* est secundum suam *essentiam*, cuius fluxus est continuus; unde non[^10] est ponere plura instantia, ut *consequenter* se habentia *secundum se*; sed tamen, secundum quod *mensurat* duas actiones discontinuas est in eo duo signare; sicut si linea secet aliam, signat duo puncta. — Sed illud non potest stare, quia in nullo *continuo* nec esse nec intelligi nec signari possunt vere duo indivisibilia, ipso manente *continuo*, quae se habeant *consequenter*, alioquin intelligitur de necessitate ut multiplicatum. Si ergo tempus manet non intercisum, patet etc.

Et ideo dicendum est ultimo, quod tempus sive instans mensura ultimi *esse* panis et primi *esse* corporis, potest dupliciter accipi: vel in *duratione propria* uniuscuiusque, sicut dicit Philosophus, quod « unumquodque propria periodo mensuratur », quae illa quidem cum re incipit et desinit; et sic sunt *diversae mensurae discontinuae* et diversa instantia *consequenter se habentia*, sicut sunt duo *esse*, *esse* scilicet panis et corporis. Si autem accipiatur instans secundum *communem mensuram*, quae est *tempus continuum*, non intercisum, ut est mensura motus primi mobilis, vel etiam ut tempus consideratur secundum *essentiam*, non secundum *esse*; tunc accipit *determinatum instans* secundum nostram signationem. Signetur ergo unum instans *in tempore*, in quo ultimo est *panis*; signetur et aliud instans, in quo primo est *corpus*? Ego dico, non signetur, quia[^11] non est signare *duo instantia consequenter* se habentia in *continuo*, manente continuo; unde quodlibet horum *per se* signari potest, sed duo *simul* impossibile est signare. Et sic patet, quod in alio et alio instanti habet esse panis et corpus secundum *rem*, et secundum quod est, *mensura realis et propria*; licet secundum *mensuram communem* duo instantia immediate signare non contingat.

— Hic autem modus solvendi rationabilior et certior videtur omnibus praedictis, quoniam supra tria principia certa fundatur. Primum est, quod in eodem *instanti simplici* impossibile est contradictoria esse, quantumcumque instans habeat diversitatem secundum considerationem. Secundum est, quod in *continuo*, manente continuo, impossibile est instantia esse *consequenter* nec vere signari. Tertium est, quod inter *esse panem* et *corpus* Christi, vel inter duo contradictoria nihil est medium[^12].

english:
### Question V. *Whether this conversion is sudden or successive.*

Fifth, it is asked whether this conversion is sudden or successive. And that it is *sudden*, it seems:

1. Because succession occurs through the resistance of the recipient, as is clear in the diffusion of light into air, since [there is succession only when] something resists[^1]; but on the side of the bread there is no resistance: therefore there is no succession either.

2. Likewise, "the more powerful the agent from which an operation proceeds, the swifter it is," as is clear in the sixth book of the *Physics*[^2]; but this [conversion] is from an infinite power: therefore it is in an instant.

3. Likewise, there is no succession in an operation except on account of the preparation and the introduction of properties[^3]; but here there is no preparation: therefore no succession.

4. Likewise, if there were succession, either it would be because the bread is cast off successively, or because the body is introduced successively.

Not because of the bread; for there is no ground for asserting why one part should be converted sooner than another, nor the matter sooner than the form. Nor because of Christ's *body*; for that cannot have any but a perfect and entire *being*.

**On the contrary:**

1. Although the divine power operates there immediately, it nevertheless operates at the utterance of the word[^4]; but the utterance of the word is successive: therefore the conversion also [is successive].

2. Likewise, if you say that it does not operate *through the discourse*; nevertheless it operates *together* with the discourse, since [it operates] neither before nor after; but[^5] the utterance of the discourse is successive: therefore, since what is successive is not simultaneous with what is instantaneous, it is clear, etc.

3. Likewise, if the conversion is in an instant, I ask: in that instant in which the change occurs, what is there? — either *bread* or *body*[^6]. Not bread, since bread is the term *from which*; not body, since [the body] is the term *to which* the change is; nor *anything else*: therefore nothing; but this is impossible: therefore the change does not occur in an instant.

4. Likewise, the bread in that conversion has its last *being*, and similarly Christ's body its first; [and this is] either in the *same instant* or in *another*. If in the *same*: then bread and body exist simultaneously. If in *one and another*; but between any two instants there falls an intervening time[^7], and in that intervening [time] the conversion occurs: therefore etc.

> **CONCLUSION.**
>
> The conversion of the bread into the true body of Christ occurs in an instant, not successively.

**I respond:** It must be said that this conversion is sudden and in an instant. For although it occurs at the utterance of the word, it does not occur through the word as through an effective principle, but through the uncreated *Word*[^8], which operates in an instant.

2. As for the objection that they are not simultaneous, it must be said that what is successive is not simultaneous with what is instantaneous as a whole nor according to a part, but nevertheless according to something of itself — for instance, its having-been-done or having-been-said, which is either in the character of a middle, or of a beginning, or of an end. Hence it is certain that when the whole has been said, the whole has been done; but when the Lord does it, He Himself knows[^9].

3. As for the objection concerning that instant, whether it be bread; it must be said that in a sudden change the *coming-to-be* and the *having-been-made* are simultaneous, and the *ceasing* and the *having-ceased* are simultaneous; since therefore in an instant the bread ceases to be, it is not bread. *Again*, since it begins to be the body, or is converted into the body, it is the body of Christ.

4. As for what is asked concerning the last *being* of the bread, there are several positions.

For some say that, since the bread has *temporal* being but Christ's body *eternal* being, the last *being* of the bread is only in time, the first *being* of the body in an instant. Hence, just as the instant is joined to time so that there is nothing in between, so they say it holds in the case at hand. — But this is no probable evasion: first, because if the bread never had being in an instant, the objection would remain, and there is no solution here. Secondly, because the fact that Christ's body is upon the altar or under the species, this is temporal. Thirdly, because each has permanent *being*, and therefore the *being* of each is in an instant.

Therefore there is another position: that in the same instant there is the last *being of the bread* and the first *being of the body* — the same, I say, according to *substance*, differing according to *reason*; because insofar as it is the measure of the last *being* of the bread, it is the term of the *past*, [and] insofar as [it is the measure] of the first *being of the body*, it is the beginning of the *future*. — But this position cannot stand, because whatever diversity there may be in reason within one instant, contradictories are never simultaneously true in the same [instant]: therefore neither are *disparate* [things true] of the same. And *furthermore*, if the *past* were in its term, and the *future* in its beginning, they would never be continuous through one instant; rather, they would be simultaneous.

Therefore there is a third position: that it is in one instant according to *reality*, but several according to *virtual power*. For just as one point becomes two points by the division of a line and by commensuration — as, for instance, if a juncture of two lines is made upon an underlying continuous line; that one point at which they are joined is equivalent to *two*: so in the instant, although it is not multiplied (since time is not divided), nevertheless it is equivalent to *two* on account of the commensuration of two terms, namely of the duration of the bread and of the body. — But this cannot stand, because in *contiguous* things the terms are simultaneous; but in *durations*, which are ordered according to before and after,

it is impossible that the terms be simultaneous; whence in that *junction* the underlying point does not *become two*, but two points *are united in one*, yet they do not *merge* into one, on account of the distinction of the bodies in which they are. And *again*, however true it may be that two *indivisibles* are simultaneous, it is nevertheless never true that two *contradictory opposites* are simultaneously present in the same [subject], since they are incompossible; nor likewise those things which necessarily require an order — not only *causally* or according to nature, but also according to *being* in act and actual duration.

Therefore there is a fourth position: that it is in *one and another* instant according to *reality*, in the manner in which in time many instants are to be posited; because [time] is *one* according to its *essence*, whose flow is continuous; hence one must not[^10] posit several instants as ordered *consequently in themselves*; but nevertheless, insofar as it *measures* two discontinuous actions, two [instants] are to be marked in it; just as if a line cuts another, it marks two points. — But this cannot stand, because in no *continuum*, while it remains continuous, can two indivisibles truly be, or be understood, or be marked off, as ordered *consequently*; otherwise [the continuum] is of necessity understood as multiplied. If, then, time remains uninterrupted, it is clear, etc.

And therefore it must be said, lastly, that the time or instant which is the measure of the last *being* of the bread and the first *being* of the body can be taken in two ways: either in the *proper duration* of each, as the Philosopher says, that "each thing is measured by its proper period," which [duration] indeed begins and ceases with the thing; and thus there are *diverse discontinuous measures* and diverse instants *ordered consequently*, just as there are two *beings*, namely the *being* of the bread and of the body. But if the instant is taken according to the *common measure*, which is *continuous time*, uninterrupted, as it is the measure of the motion of the first mobile, or also as time is considered according to its *essence*, not according to its *being*; then it takes a *determinate instant* according to our marking. Let one instant then be marked *in time*, in which the bread last is; and let another instant be marked, in which the body first is? I say: let it not be marked, because[^11] one cannot mark *two instants ordered consequently* in a *continuum*, the continuum remaining; whence each of these can be marked *by itself*, but it is impossible to mark the two *simultaneously*. And thus it is clear that in one and another instant the bread and the body have being according to *reality*, and insofar as it is, [it is] a *real and proper measure*; although according to the *common measure* it does not happen that the two instants are marked immediately.

— Now this manner of solving seems more reasonable and more certain than all the aforesaid, since it is founded upon three certain principles. The first is that in the same *simple instant* it is impossible for contradictories to be, however much the instant may have diversity according to consideration. The second is that in a *continuum*, while it remains continuous, it is impossible for instants to be *consequent*, nor to be truly marked off. The third is that between *being bread* and [being] the *body* of Christ, or between two contradictories, there is nothing in between[^12].

la: (p. 248, nota 4) Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 71. (c. 8.), ubi maiorem et minorem velocitatem motus repetit ex maiori et minori resistentia sive impedimento, quod praebet vel medium pertranseundum, v. g. aqua et aër, vel ipsum corpus movendum, v. g. gravius et levius. — Post *in aëra* cod. aa subiungit *quae est subita*. Post *nihil* edd. supplent *est ibi*.

en: (p. 248, note 4) Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 71 (ch. 8), where he derives the greater and lesser velocity of motion from the greater and lesser resistance or impediment afforded either by the medium to be traversed (e.g. water and air) or by the very body to be moved (e.g. the heavier and the lighter). — After *into air* codex aa adds *which is sudden*. After *nothing* the editions supply *is there*.

la: (p. 248, nota 5) Colligi potest ex text. 11. seqq. (c. 2.). Cfr. VIII. text. 79. seq. (c. 10) iam tom. I. pag. 662, nota 3. allegati. — Pro *quantum* codd. GHaa *quanto*.

en: (p. 248, note 5) This can be gathered from text 11 ff. (ch. 2). Cf. [*Physics*] VIII, text 79 f. (ch. 10), already cited in vol. I, p. 662, note 3. — For *quantum* ("the more") codices GHaa read *quanto*.

la: (p. 248, nota 6) Vide Aristot., II. de Generat. et corrupt. text. 23. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: (p. 248, note 6) See Aristotle, *On Generation and Corruption* II, text 23 ff. (ch. 4).

la: (p. 249, nota 1) Supple (cum Alex. Hal.): *successive abiicitur*. — Aliquanto inferius post *Christi corpus* bene addit cod. aa (bb a secunda manu) *successive introducitur* (Alex. Hal.).

en: (p. 249, note 1) Supply (with Alexander of Hales): *is cast off successively*. — Somewhat below, after *Christ's body* codex aa (bb by a second hand) rightly adds *is introduced successively* (Alexander of Hales).

la: (p. 249, nota 2) Cfr. supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, ubi etiam maior seq. arg. insinuatur. — Edd. *quia*.

en: (p. 249, note 2) Cf. above, d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, where the major of the following argument is also intimated. — The editions read *quia* ("because").

la: (p. 249, nota 4) Scilicet corpus Christi. — Inferius post *secundum* repetunt codd. HLPQaa (I a secunda manu) *corpus*. ‖ (nota 5) Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 2: *Inter puncta autem semper est linea, et inter ipsa nunc [instantia] tempus.* Finem arg. — sic exhibent codd. N aa *ergo non in instanti*.

en: (p. 249, notes 4–5) Namely, the body of Christ. — Below, after *insofar as* codices HLPQaa (I by a second hand) repeat *body*. ‖ Aristotle, *Physics* VI, text 2: "Between points there is always a line, and between the very nows [instants] a time." The end of the argument — codices N aa give it thus: *therefore not in an instant*.

la: (p. 249, nota 3) Edd. *quia*. *(So the editions read at this point.)*

en: (p. 249, note 3) The editions read *quia* ("because").

la: (p. 249, nota 6) Ut dictum est supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.

en: (p. 249, note 6) As was said above, d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3.

la: (p. 249, nota 7) His ultimis verbis tangit S. Doctor difficultatem, quam movit supra d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 5. seqq., et III. Sent. d. 40. dub. 3.

en: (p. 249, note 7) With these last words the holy Doctor touches on the difficulty which he raised above, d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, fundamentum 5 ff., and *Sentences* III, d. 40, dub. 3.

la: (p. 250, nota 1) Fere omnes codd. cum ed. I perperam omittunt *non*, quod iam secunda manus in cod. E supplevit, cod. A legit *unde est ponere plura instantia, nec consequenter* etc.

en: (p. 250, note 1) Nearly all the codices, with edition I, wrongly omit *non*, which a second hand already supplied in codex E; codex A reads *whence several instants are to be posited, and not consequently*, etc.

la: (p. 250, nota 4) Ita fere omnes codd., cod. H omisso *non*, *signetur, quia*; codd. FGI *quod non signetur, quia*; edd. brevius *dico, quod non est signare*.

en: (p. 250, note 4) So nearly all the codices; codex H, omitting *non*, [reads] *let it be marked, because*; codices FGI [read] *that it should not be marked, because*; the editions more briefly [read] *I say that it cannot be marked*.

la: (p. 250, nota 5) Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.

en: (p. 250, note 5) See the scholion to question 4 of this article.

latin_scholion:
*Vide scholion ad quaestionem IV huius articuli* (the article scholion covering this and the following question is rendered with QUAESTIO IV).

---

english_scholion:
*See the scholion to Question IV of this article* (the article scholion that covers this and the following question is rendered with QUAESTIO IV).

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the Vol IV PDF column bands for printed pp. 248–250 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{248,249,250}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`; offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 28020–28238). Running heads confirm the chunk: p.249 reads "DIST. XI. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. V. 249"; p.250 verso "SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." The q5 opener ("Quinto quaeritur…") begins at the foot of p.248 (after the article SCHOLION printed with q4); the body runs through p.249 and the left+right columns of p.250, ending immediately before "QUAESTIO VI." (p.250, mid–right column).

**Scholion disposition.** Quaracchi prints a single article-level SCHOLION at the foot of p.248 (left/right) that covers q4 *and* q5 (and notes the q6 *de locutionibus* matter). Per the established d.11 chunking, that scholion is rendered in full with QUAESTIO IV; this chunk carries only a one-line cross-reference in the `### Scholion` slot. The q5 footer note [^12] ("Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.") is itself Quaracchi's own pointer to that shared scholion. `has_scholion: false`.

**Cross-chunk footer split (p.248).** Printed p.248 carries footer notes 1–6. By body anchor, notes 1–3 (Cod. N *sub Sacramento*; *anima est corporis forma*, *de Anima*; *In Vat. additur sive totus Christus*) attach to the q4 solutio / article scholion that ends at the top of p.248 and belong with q4. Only notes 4–6 (resistens / *Physicorum* / *proprietatum*) anchor in q5's three opening fundamenta and are rendered here. **Hand-off:** the receiving agent for q6 takes p.250 footer notes 6–7 (Ambrosius, *de Sacram.*; *Supple: propositio*), which anchor in the q6 fundamenta beginning at the foot of p.250.

**[?] flags.**
- [?] [^7] — The OCR/PDF footer apparatus at p.249 nota 3 reads simply "Edd. *ququia*" (an editorial-variant note), but its body anchor (fundamentum 4, "tempus medium") is not perfectly determined by the cascade-fragmented footer block; the marker is placed at "tempus medium[^7]" on textual grounds (the *cadit tempus medium* clause is what the *quia*-variant bears on). Confirm anchor against a 600 dpi pass in the d.11–d.20 polish gate.
- [?] [^6] — p.249 notes 4 and 5 are merged into one apparatus entry (joined with ‖) because both anchor within fundamentum 3 of the *Contra* (the *aut panis aut corpus* / *terminus a quo* clause and the Aristotle *Physics* VI citation closing the argument). If a finer split is wanted, note 5 ("Inter puncta…") can be lifted to a separate marker at "tempus medium".

**Page-split map.** p.248: q5 opener + fundamenta 1–4 (col. tails) + footer notes 4–6. p.249: *Contra* 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, replies 2–3, start of reply 4 (positions 1–3) + footer notes 1–7 (q5's = 1–6; note 7 is the *quia* variant). p.250: reply 4 positions 3–5 (the *tertia/quarta/quinta* positiones and the *tria principia*) + footer notes 1–5 (q5's = 1, 4, 5; notes 2–3 are Aristotle source notes folded into the running citations; notes 6–7 belong to q6).


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 11, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 6

title_alt: Quibus verbis sit exprimenda conversio panis in corpus Christi

title_alt: By what words the conversion of bread into the body of Christ is to be expressed

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 250 -->

### Quaestio VI. *Quibus verbis illa conversio debeat exprimi.*

Sexto et ultimo quaeritur, quibus verbis debeat exprimi ista conversio. Et ostenditur, quod per verbum substantivum, ut dicatur: Panis erit corpus Christi; et quod fuit panis etc.; et hoc auctoritate et ratione.

1. *Auctoritate:* quia Ambrosius[^1] dicit: « Quod erat panis ante consecrationem est corpus Christi post consecrationem ».

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia ubi totum transit in totum, fit maior unio, quam ubi pars in partem; sed ubi pars in partem, vera est[^2], ut puta secundum *accidens* album erit nigrum, et secundum

<!-- page 251 -->

substantiam, ut quod fuit sub forma ignis modo est sub forma aeris: ergo multo fortius hic, ubi totum transit in totum.

Item, quod in verbo *mutandi*, videtur.

3. Damascenus[^3]: « Panem et vinum fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum ».

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia quod mutatur, et non annihilatur, non fit nihil, sed aliquid[^4]; sed panis mutatur, et non annihilatur nec fit aliud quam corpus: ergo etc.

Item, quod cum verbo *possendi:*

5. Ambrosius[^5]: « Quod est panis potest esse corpus consecratione, quae fit Christi sermone ».

6. Item, ratione videtur: quia omne quod mutatur in aliquid, habet *posse* ad illud, quia omnem actum antecedit potentia aliqua[^6]; sed panis mutatur in corpus Christi: ergo etc.

Item, quod cum *praepositione:*

7. Ambrosius, de Sacramentis[^7]: « Ubi accessit consecratio, de pane fit corpus Christi ».

8. Item, ratione videtur: quia hic est transsubstantiatio; aut ergo de aliquo, aut de nihilo. Non de nihilo: ergo de aliquo: ergo de pane, cum non sit dare de alio.

**Contra:** 1. Hoc verbum *est* notat identitatem[^8]; sed panis ad corpus non est identitas nec in forma nec in materia: ergo talis locutio, scilicet cum verbo substantivo, quod notat identitatem, est falsa.

2. Item, omne fieri terminatur ad factum esse[^9]; sed in hoc Sacramento nihil factum est, quia corpus non est nunc factum ibi: ergo nec fieri est: ergo sunt falsae cum verbo fiendi.

3. Item, omnis potentia aut est activa, aut passiva[^10]; in pane non est activa nec etiam passiva, quia tunc esset ad actum: ergo cum hoc verbo *potest* est falsa locutio.

4. Item, haec praepositio *de* et *ex* dicit causalitatem, aut ordinem, ut de mane fit meridies[^11]. Hoc non potest stare, secundum quod dicit causalitatem, nec secundum quod dicit ordinem, quia tunc est sensus: post panem est corpus; pari ratione posset dici de verbo: corpus post verbum.

<!-- page 252 -->

si dicatur: panis potest esse corpus. Sed si dicatur ordinatio secundum causas superiores; tunc est in locutione veritas, ut si dicatur: panis potest converti a Deo. — Et sic dicit Ambrosius, et ratio concludit, quia actus ille est a potentia superiori.

> **Conclusio.** Illa tantum propositio est vera et propria, in qua verbum significat non identitatem neque innovationem neque ordinationem naturalem, sed solum conversionem cum praepositione importante transitum, non causam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod ista conversio est singularis, quia totum in totum transit, et hoc virtute supra naturam[^12]; ideo panis ad corpus non est identitas, non est causalitas, in Christi corpore nulla est innovatio, in pane nulla est secundum causas inferiores ordinatio. Ex his eliciuntur quatuor regulae.

Prima est, quod omnia verba significantia identitatem panis ad corpus Christi faciunt sermonem falsum. Unde omnes tales locutiones impropriae sunt et exponendae: panis erit corpus Christi, vel, quod fuit panis est corpus Christi, id est, conversum est in corpus[^13]; simpliciter non sunt recipiendae cum relativo et verbo substantivo. — Et ideo non valet ratio, quam adducit. Quia enim totum in totum transit, non est maior identitas, immo minor, immo nulla.

Secunda regula est, quod omnia verba significantia innovationem circa corpus Christi sunt falso dicta; quae autem significant conversionem et transitum vere dicuntur. Et quia generari dicit innovationem, fieri potest dicere transitum, ut cum dicitur: hoc fit illud; ideo cum verbo fiendi potest concedi, non cum verbo generandi. Et concedendae sunt rationes ad hoc. — Ratio ad oppositum non valet, quia obiicit de fieri, prout dicit alicuius generationem; sed non sic accipitur hic. Unde haec est magis propria: panis fit corpus, quam[^14]: de pane fit corpus; et haec simpliciter est impropria: corpus Christi fit, sed conceditur: fit hic.

Tertia regula est: quia non est ordinatio panis ad corpus Christi secundum causas inferiores[^15], ideo verba hoc significantia, sicut hoc verbum *potest*, absolute dictum, faciunt locutionem falsam, ut si dicatur: panis potest esse corpus. Sed si dicatur ordinatio secundum causas superiores; tunc est in locutione veritas, ut si dicatur: panis potest converti a Deo. — Et sic dicit Ambrosius, et ratio concludit, quia actus ille est a potentia superiori.

Quarta regula est: quia nulla est causalitas, sed solum transitus panis in corpus Christi; quod omnes praepositiones causalitatem importantes reddunt locutionem impropriam. Unde impropriae sunt cum hac praepositione *de* vel *ex*, secundum quod dicunt causalitatem; sed cum est aliqua acceptio ordinis, sustineri potest, nec tamen secundum illam omnino propria. — Et dicendum, quod illa est conclusio vera et propria, in qua verbum significans non identitatem nec innovationem nec ordinationem naturalem, sed solum conversionem cum praepositione importante transitum, non causam. Unde haec est propria: panis convertitur in corpus Christi.

english:
### Question VI. *By what words that conversion ought to be expressed.*

Sixth and last it is asked, by what words this conversion ought to be expressed. And it is shown that [it is to be expressed] through a substantive verb, so that one says: The bread will be the body of Christ; and: what was bread, etc.; and this both by authority and by reason.

1. *By authority:* because Ambrose[^1] says: « What was bread before the consecration is the body of Christ after the consecration ».

2. Likewise, it seems by reason: because where a whole passes into a whole, a greater union comes about than where a part [passes] into a part; but where a part [passes] into a part, it is true[^2], as for instance with respect to an *accident* the white will be black, and with respect to

substance, as what was under the form of fire is now under the form of air: therefore much more strongly here, where a whole passes into a whole.

Likewise, it seems [it should be] with the verb *of changing.*

3. Damascene[^3]: « He made the bread and the wine to be his body and blood ».

4. Likewise, it seems by reason: because what is changed, and is not annihilated, does not become nothing, but something[^4]; but the bread is changed, and is not annihilated nor does it become anything other than the body: therefore, etc.

Likewise, [it should be] with the verb *of being able:*

5. Ambrose[^5]: « What is bread is able to be the body by the consecration, which comes about by the word of Christ ».

6. Likewise, it seems by reason: because everything that is changed into something has a *power* toward it, since some potency precedes every act[^6]; but the bread is changed into the body of Christ: therefore, etc.

Likewise, [it should be] with a *preposition:*

7. Ambrose, *On the Sacraments*[^7]: « When the consecration has come, from bread the body of Christ comes about ».

8. Likewise, it seems by reason: because here there is transubstantiation; therefore [it is] either from something or from nothing. Not from nothing: therefore from something: therefore from the bread, since there is nothing else to point to.

**On the contrary:** 1. This verb *is* denotes identity[^8]; but between bread and the body there is no identity, neither in form nor in matter: therefore such a locution, namely with the substantive verb, which denotes identity, is false.

2. Likewise, every becoming is terminated at a having-been-made-to-be[^9]; but in this Sacrament nothing has been made, because the body is not now made there: therefore neither is there a becoming: therefore [the locutions] are false with the verb of becoming.

3. Likewise, every potency is either active or passive[^10]; in the bread there is neither active nor even passive [potency], because then it would be ordered toward act: therefore with this verb *is able* the locution is false.

4. Likewise, this preposition *from* (*de*) and *out of* (*ex*) denotes causality or order, as from morning noon comes about[^11]. This cannot stand, neither according as it denotes causality, nor according as it denotes order, because then the sense is: after the bread is the body; by the same reasoning it could be said of the word: the body [is] after the word

if it be said: the bread is able to be the body. But if order according to higher causes be meant, then there is truth in the locution, as if it be said: the bread is able to be converted by God. — And thus Ambrose says, and the reasoning concludes, because that act is from a higher power.

> **Conclusion.** That proposition alone is true and proper in which the verb signifies neither identity nor innovation nor natural ordination, but only conversion with a preposition importing transit, not cause.

**I respond:** It must be said that this conversion is singular, because a whole passes into a whole, and this by a power above nature[^12]; therefore between bread and the body there is no identity, there is no causality, in the body of Christ there is no innovation, in the bread there is no ordination according to lower causes. From these four rules are drawn.

The first is, that all words signifying identity of the bread to the body of Christ make the statement false. Hence all such locutions are improper and must be expounded: the bread will be the body of Christ, or, what was bread is the body of Christ, that is, it has been converted into the body[^13]; absolutely they are not to be admitted with a relative and a substantive verb. — And therefore the reasoning he adduces is invalid. For because a whole passes into a whole, there is not a greater identity, but rather less, indeed none.

The second rule is, that all words signifying innovation concerning the body of Christ are falsely said; but those which signify conversion and transit are truly said. And because *to be generated* states innovation, *to become* can state transit, as when it is said: this becomes that; therefore with the verb of becoming it can be conceded, not with the verb of generating. And the reasonings to this effect are to be conceded. — The reasoning to the opposite is invalid, because it objects from *becoming* insofar as it states a generation of something; but it is not so taken here. Hence this is more proper: the bread becomes the body, than[^14]: from bread the body comes about; and this is absolutely improper: the body of Christ comes about, but it is conceded: it comes about here.

The third rule is: because there is no ordination of the bread to the body of Christ according to lower causes[^15], therefore words signifying this, such as this verb *is able*, said absolutely, make the locution false, as if it be said: the bread is able to be the body. But if order according to higher causes be meant, then there is truth in the locution, as if it be said: the bread is able to be converted by God. — And thus Ambrose says, and the reasoning concludes, because that act is from a higher power.

The fourth rule is: because there is no causality, but only transit of the bread into the body of Christ; [so] that all prepositions importing causality render the locution improper. Hence locutions with this preposition *from* (*de*) or *out of* (*ex*) are improper, according as they state causality; but when there is some sense of order, it can be sustained, yet not according to that sense altogether proper. — And it must be said that that is the true and proper conclusion in which the verb signifies neither identity nor innovation nor natural ordination, but only conversion with a preposition importing transit, not cause. Hence this is proper: the bread is converted into the body of Christ.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 16. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Bk. IV, *On the Sacraments*, c. 4, n. 16. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Supple: *propositio.*

en: Supply: *proposition.*

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13. — Pro *mutandi* Vat. cum aliquot codd. *fiendi.*

en: Bk. IV, *On the Orthodox Faith*, c. 13. — For *of changing* (*mutandi*) the Vatican edition with several codices reads *of becoming* (*fiendi*).

la: Cfr. Aristot., V. Phys. text. 7. (c. 1.). — De *minori*, in qua codd. *ut panis* pro *sed panis*, vide supra q. 3.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* V, text 7 (c. 1). — On the *minor*, in which the codices read *as bread* (*ut panis*) for *but bread* (*sed panis*), see above, q. 3.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 14. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Bk. IV, *On the Sacraments*, c. 4, n. 14. See here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Cfr. Aristot., IX. Metaph. text. 13. seqq. (VIII. c. 8.).

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Metaphysics* IX, text 13 ff. (VIII, c. 8).

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 14. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Bk. IV, *On the Sacraments*, c. 4, n. 14. Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 190, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, p. 190, note 3.

la: Vide Aristot., VI. Phys. text. 59. (c. 6.). — Minor ostensa d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. ad 1.

en: See Aristotle, *Physics* VI, text 59 (c. 6). — The minor is shown at d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, *ad* 1.

la: Ut docet Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 17. (IV. c. 12.) et IX. text. 2. (VIII. c. 1.). — Inferius post *tunc esset* cod. aa supplet *ordinatio.*

en: As Aristotle teaches, *Metaphysics* V, text 17 (IV, c. 12) and IX, text 2 (VIII, c. 1). — Below, after *then it would be* (*tunc esset*), codex aa supplies *ordination.*

la: Aristot., I. de Generat. animal. c. 18, recensens modos quibus aliquid ex alio fit, ait: Alio enim modo, cum ex die noctem fieri dicimus, aut ex puero virum, quoniam *hoc post hoc* [sive dicit: ordinem], alio cum ex aere statuam, aut ex ligno lectum, et quaecumque ex materia [sive causa materiali] fieri dicimus, ut ex aliquo, quod insit et formetur, totum sit etc. Cfr. Metaph. text. 7. (I. brevior, c. 2.), V. text. 29. (IV. c. 24.) et VIII. text. 11. (VII. c. 4.). Vide etiam I. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXXVI. c. 5. — In fine arg. codd. N aa addunt *quia panis et verbum sunt de integritate.*

en: Aristotle, *On the Generation of Animals* I, c. 18, reviewing the modes by which something comes to be from another, says: For in one mode, when we say night comes to be from day, or a man from a boy, since *this after this* [i.e. he states order]; in another, when [we say] a statue [comes to be] from bronze, or a bed from wood, and whatever we say comes to be from matter [i.e. from a material cause], as from something that is present and is given form, so that the whole is, etc. Cf. *Metaphysics* text 7 (I, shorter, c. 2), V, text 29 (IV, c. 24) and VIII, text 11 (VII, c. 4). See also *I Sent.*, the text of the Master, d. XXXVI, c. 5. — At the end of the argument codices N aa add *because the bread and the word belong to the integrity [of the form].*

la: Cfr. supra q. 1. seqq. et d. 10. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. — Post pauca Vat., verbis *innovatio* et *causalitas* transpositis et interpunctione mutata, legit: *non est innovatio in Christi corpore, nulla est causalitas in pane, nulla* etc.

en: Cf. above, q. 1 ff. and d. 10, p. II, a. 1, q. 1. — Shortly after, the Vatican edition, with the words *innovation* and *causality* transposed and the punctuation changed, reads: *there is no innovation in the body of Christ, there is no causality in the bread, none*, etc.

la: In Vat. desideratur *id est, conversum est in corpus.* Immediate post voci *simpliciter*, cui Vat. cum paucis codd. praemittit *et*, codd. H P Q subiungunt *etiam*, cod. M tamen.

en: In the Vatican edition *that is, it has been converted into the body* is lacking. Immediately after the word *absolutely* (*simpliciter*), to which the Vatican edition with a few codices prefixes *and*, codices H P Q subjoin *also*, codex M however [reads] *yet.*

la: Codd. US supplent *haec.* Iidem codd. cum cod. T superius pro *ideo cum* substituunt *aeque cum.*

en: Codices US supply *this.* The same codices, with codex T, above substitute *equally with* (*aeque cum*) for *therefore with* (*ideo cum*).

la: Cfr. I. Sent. d. 42. q. 4. — [Tertia regula.] In Vat. *Et dicendum* etc. legitur, omisso *ideo*; vide notam pag. seq.

en: Cf. *I Sent.*, d. 42, q. 4. — [Third rule.] In the Vatican edition *And it must be said*, etc., is read, *therefore* (*ideo*) being omitted; see the note on the following page.

latin_scholion:
(Nullum scholion ad hanc quaestionem; vide scholion ad quaest. IV huius articuli, ubi articuli scholion sequentes quaestiones complectitur — cf. apparatum, notam 5.)

---

english_scholion:
(There is no scholion to this question; see the scholion to question IV of this article, where the article's scholion embraces the following questions — cf. apparatus, note 5.)

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p250/251/252-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), since the IA djvu OCR for this two-column range is cascade-shattered (one-token-per-line fragmentation + L/R column bleed), per the VOL II OVERRIDE. Raw OCR range 28239–28455 (`Sexto et ultimo quaeritur…` → just before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI`) verified as the chunk boundary; raw used only to cross-check footnote-marker spacing. Offset pdf = printed + 20. Running heads verified: p250 (none in body band), p251 `DIST. XI. P. I. ART. UNICUS … QUAEST. VI`, p251-R `…CUS QUAEST. VI. 251`, p252 `SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.` / `252`.

**Page span.** The question runs across THREE printed pages: it opens at the foot of p250 (after q5's *instans/tempus* close), occupies all of p251, and its conclusion tail (regula 3–4, *Ad fundamentum 5*, and the closing *panis convertitur in corpus Christi*) finishes in the left column of p252, immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` (Dub. I = next chunk, `bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-dubia`). `printed_pages` set to [250, 251, 252] accordingly.

**Apparatus / page-footer split.** p250's footer block is shared with q5: notes 1–4 there belong to q5; only notes 5 (`Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.`), 6, 7 are q6's — and note 5 is the article-scholion cross-reference. Note 5 is rendered here as [^1] (the page-250 *Ambrosius* citation, footer n. 6) … to keep the body's running numeration, the markers were renumbered sequentially [^1]–[^15] within this chunk. p251 footer notes 1–13 are all q6's. p252's footer notes 1 and 2 belong to q6's tail (folded into [^15] and the scholion cross-ref); p252 notes 3, 4, 5 belong to Dub. I and migrate to the dubia chunk.

**Hand-off to `bon-sent-IV-d11-p1-dubia`:** p252 footer notes **3** (`Prov. 25, 27`), **4** (`Algerus, l. de Sacram. c. 9 … attribuit Augustino … Idem dub. solvit S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med.`), and **5** (`Petr. Hispan., Summul. tr. de Relativis …`) are NOT q6's — they attach to Dub. I (`Mysterium fidei…`) / Dub. II / Dub. III on p252. The dubia chunk must capture them. The q6/dubia boundary is mid-p252 (q6 ends `…panis convertitur in corpus Christi`; `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` + `Dub. I` follow in the same left column).

**Scholion disposition.** This question renders NO scholion; the article's scholion covering the later questions is rendered with QUAESTIO IV (per dispatch instruction and confirmed by Quaracchi footers n. 5 on both p250 and p252: `Vide scholion ad 4. huius articuli quaest.`). A one-line La+En cross-reference note stands in the `### Scholion` slot in both language blocks.

**[?] flags.** None. The PDF bands were fully legible at 450 dpi for body and footers; the only ambiguity (note 11's long Aristotle quotation, heavily fragmented in OCR) was resolved against the printed band. Footnote 15 reconstructs the Quaracchi cross-reference (`I. Sent. d. 42. q. 4.`) plus the p252→p253 *Et dicendum/ideo* variant note; the editorial bracket `[Tertia regula.]` and `[Third rule.]` flag the marginal-rubric attachment, not a textual doubt.

**J4 Class D/E repair (2026-07-17).** Health scan flagged `defs=15 la=16 en=16`. Diagnosis: NOT the §2 backtick-blockquote false positive (no backtick-quoted `[^N]` ranges in this file) and NOT missing/mislabeled apparatus content — this was a genuine instance of the separately-documented "literal `[^N]` in prose steals the binding" bug (per repo `CLAUDE.md` / J2), located inside the translator-added editorial parenthetical that stands in the `### Scholion` slot in both language blocks (this question has no real scholion; see the **Scholion disposition** note above). The parenthetical's own cross-reference to apparatus note 5 — "cf. apparatum, `[^5]`" (La) / "cf. apparatus, `[^5]`" (En) — was written using literal footnote-marker syntax, duplicating the real `[^5]` anchor at line 50 (La) / 110 (En) and creating a second, un-defined binding that the live renderer would turn into a spurious clickable superscript. Fixed by de-fencing the cross-reference text only, no wording or apparatus content changed: La → "cf. apparatum, notam 5."; En → "cf. apparatus, note 5." Post-fix: `defs=15 la=15 en=15`, all label sets identical, no dupes/extras.

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. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 1

source_text:
<!-- page 254 -->

### Articulus I. *De speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum eucharistia confici debeat in specie panis et vini.*

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur. Primo ad intelligentiam primi quaeritur de speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia. Secundo quaeritur de modo, quo conficitur Christus. Circa primum quaeruntur breviter quatuor.

Circa primum igitur quaeritur, utrum hoc Sacramentum confici debeat in specie panis et vini.

Et quod istud Sacramentum debeat confici in specie panis et vini, ipsa Domini institutio sive consecratio[^1] et Ecclesiae catholicae observatio sufficientem praebet auctoritatem et rationem. — Sed quod non, videtur:

1. Quia secundum quod dicit Hugo[^2], « crescente veritatis cognitione, signa debuerunt esse evidentiora »: ergo cum panis et vinum fuerint Sacramenta legis naturae, nullo modo debent esse Sacramenta legis gratiae, in qua tantum concurrit cognitio veritatis.

2. Item, lex scripta plus cognitionis dabat et habebat quam naturalis: ergo eius signa erant certiora et expressiora: ergo magis lex nova debuit conficere in Sacramentis sive signis traditis tempore legis scriptae quam tempore legis naturae, de quibus sunt species panis et vini.

3. Item hoc ipsum videtur, quia in lege scripta agnus et eius sanguis offerebatur[^3]; sed caro magis exprimit carnem, et sanguis sanguinem: ergo magis in illa specie debet confici Sacramentum eucharistiae quam in ista.

4. Item, species Sacramenti naturaliter habent repraesentare[^4]; sed panis et vinum fiunt artificio: ergo non congruunt Sacramento.

5. Item, hoc specialiter ostenditur de pane, quia in hoc Sacramento specialiter debet significari Christus passus, unde ipse dicit[^5]: *Hoc facite in meam commemorationem*; sed panis integer non significat passionem: ergo non congruit huic Sacramento.

6. Item, in hoc Sacramento continetur Christus ut cibus parvulorum, qui prius erat cibus Angelorum; sed cibus parvulorum est lac[^6]: ergo in lacte deberet confici.

7. Item, obiicitur de vino: quia hic significatur Christus ut cibus sive potus sanans; sed vinum non datur infirmis: ergo non debet in vino confici hoc Sacramentum, quod est sanativum infirmitatis spiritualis.

8. Item, effectus istius Sacramenti est exstinguere morbum concupiscentiae; sed vini est accendere, Proverbiorum vigesimo[^7]: *Luxuriosa res est vinum*: ergo etc.

> **Conclusio.** Panis et vinum congrue exprimunt duplicem rem huius Sacramenti.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod istius Sacramenti duplex est res, scilicet corpus Christi verum et mysticum[^8]; et quia signa sunt instituta propter expressionem rei significatae, talia debuerunt esse, quae de sui natura nata essent utrumque exprimere. — Et quoniam corpus mysticum est ex multis aggregatis in unum, talia elementa esse debuerunt, quae ex multis facerent unum; tale autem est panis, quia est ex multis granis puris; tale etiam est vinum, quod est ex multis acinis puris[^9]: ideo recte unionem corporis mystici significant.

Corpus autem Christi verum continetur in hoc Sacramento ut cibus — quia propter hoc institutum est Sacramentum[^10] — et ut cibus non qualiscumque, sed ut cibus conveniens, cibus efficax, cibus sanans, cibus omnibus communis: ideo debuit institui signum, quod quidem esset cibus habens istas proprietates. Cibus autem magis conveniens est panis de frumento et vinum; et huius signum est, quod naturae non generat ex frequentatione fastidium, quod non convenit de aliquo alio cibo. — Est etiam efficax in confirmando, quia panis confortat, et vinum laetificat[^11]. — Est etiam sanus, sicut dicit Isaac in *Dietis*[^12], quod uterque ad sanitatem facit. — Ulterius est cibus communis et usitatus, maxime inter gentes rationabiliter viventes. Unde Damascenus[^13]: « Consuetudo est hominibus panem comedere et bibere vinum; ideo coniugavit eis Dominus Divinitatem et fecit ea corpus et sanguinem suum, ut per haec quae sunt secundum naturam consueta, in quibus vita conservatur, ad ea quae sunt supra naturam, anima transferatur ».

<!-- page 255 -->

1. Ex his patent obiecta. Quod enim obiicit, quod Sacramenta in nova lege sunt evidentiora; dicendum, quod evidentius factum est[^14] ratione verbi additi: *Hoc est corpus meum*; sed non oportuit a parte elementi, quia sufficiebat illa evidentia.

2. 3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de signis legis scriptae, dicendum, quod evidentiora signa erant passionis, quia, sicut supra dictum est, ad illam significandam principaliter ordinabantur, sed non evidentiora quantum ad expressionem gratiae sacramentalis; et hoc principaliter significatur in Sacramentis novae legis. — Et per hoc patet de carne, quia non significatur caro ut caro, sed ut reficiens.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt ab artificio; dicendum, quod habilitas est a natura, sed perfectio ab opere humano[^15]; sic et Christus a sua origine habuit cibandi habilitatem, sed actu est cibus effectus decoctione in igne passionis et compressione in torculari crucis; sic est in ipso signo, scilicet pane et vino.

5. Et per hoc patet sequens, quod obiicit, quod non significat passionem; dicendum enim, quod falsum est, immo significat per decoctionem, vel etiam compressionem. Posset tamen dici[^16], quod non exprimitur Christus ut passus principaliter, sed ut cibus.

6. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est cibus parvulorum; dicendum, quod est cibus parvulorum et humilium, eorum tamen, qui aliquo modo creverunt, non accedentium ad fidem. Unde Augustinus[^17]: « Cibus sum grandium, cresce, et manducabis me » etc. Et ideo in pane, non in lacte, fuit institutum.

7. Ad illud quod obiicitur de vino, quod non sanet; dicendum, quod vinum datur iam convalescentibus et non actu infirmantibus; in quo significatur, quod istud Sacramentum dari debet iam confidentibus per bonam conscientiam, non iacentibus in lecto peccati[^18].

8. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod auget luxuriam; dicendum est, quod hoc facit, quando sumitur ad ebrietatem, non quando sumitur ad refectionem et iucunditatem, servata sobrietate.

english:
### Article I. *On the species in which the Church now confects.*
### Question I. *Whether the Eucharist ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine.*

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master determines, two matters are principally asked. First, for the understanding of the first, it is asked concerning the species in which the Church now confects. Second, it is asked concerning the manner in which Christ is confected. Concerning the first, four matters are asked briefly.

Concerning the first, then, it is asked whether this Sacrament ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine.

And that this Sacrament ought to be confected in the species of bread and wine, the Lord's own institution or consecration[^1] and the observance of the Catholic Church furnish sufficient authority and ground. — But that [it ought] not, it seems:

1. Because, according to what Hugh says[^2], "as the knowledge of truth increases, the signs ought to have become more evident": therefore, since bread and wine were Sacraments of the law of nature, in no way ought they to be Sacraments of the law of grace, in which so great a knowledge of truth concurs.

2. Likewise, the written law gave and had more knowledge than the natural [law]: therefore its signs were more certain and more expressive: therefore the new law ought rather to confect in the Sacraments or signs handed down in the time of the written law than in the time of the law of nature, of which are the species of bread and wine.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems so, because in the written law the lamb and its blood were offered[^3]; but flesh more expresses flesh, and blood blood: therefore the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought rather to be confected in that species than in this.

4. Likewise, the species of a Sacrament have naturally to represent[^4]; but bread and wine come about by artifice: therefore they are not fitting for a Sacrament.

5. Likewise, this is shown especially of bread, because in this Sacrament Christ suffering ought especially to be signified, whence he himself says[^5]: *Do this in remembrance of me*; but whole bread does not signify the passion: therefore it is not fitting for this Sacrament.

6. Likewise, in this Sacrament Christ is contained as the food of little ones, who was before the food of Angels; but the food of little ones is milk[^6]: therefore it ought to be confected in milk.

7. Likewise, it is objected concerning wine: because here Christ is signified as healing food or drink; but wine is not given to the sick: therefore this Sacrament, which is curative of spiritual infirmity, ought not to be confected in wine.

8. Likewise, the effect of this Sacrament is to extinguish the disease of concupiscence; but it is of the nature of wine to inflame, Proverbs the twentieth[^7]: *Wine is a luxurious thing*: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** Bread and wine fittingly express the twofold reality of this Sacrament.

**I respond:** It must be said that of this Sacrament there is a twofold reality, namely the true and the mystical body of Christ[^8]; and since signs are instituted for the sake of expressing the thing signified, such things ought to have been [chosen] as by their nature were apt to express both. — And since the mystical body is from many things aggregated into one, such elements ought to have been [chosen] as would make one out of many; and such is bread, because it is from many pure grains; such also is wine, which is from many pure berries[^9]: therefore they rightly signify the union of the mystical body.

Now the true body of Christ is contained in this Sacrament as food — because for this the Sacrament was instituted[^10] — and as food not of any kind whatever, but as fitting food, efficacious food, healing food, food common to all: therefore a sign ought to have been instituted which would indeed be food having these properties. Now the more fitting food is bread of wheat and wine; and a sign of this is that nature does not breed disgust from its frequent use, which is not the case with any other food. — It is also efficacious in strengthening, because bread fortifies, and wine gladdens[^11]. — It is also healthful, as Isaac says in the *Diets*[^12], that each makes for health. — Further, it is common and customary food, especially among peoples living rationally. Whence Damascene[^13]: "It is the custom for men to eat bread and to drink wine; therefore the Lord joined Divinity to these and made them his body and blood, so that through these things which are according to nature customary, in which life is preserved, the soul might be carried over to those things which are above nature."

<!-- page 255 -->

1. From these things the objections are clear. For as to what it objects, that the Sacraments in the new law are more evident; it must be said that it was made more evident[^14] by reason of the word added: *This is my body*; but it was not necessary on the part of the element, because that evidence sufficed.

2. 3. To that which is objected concerning the signs of the written law, it must be said that the signs of the passion were more evident, because, as was said above, they were principally ordained to signifying it, but [they were] not more evident as regards the expression of sacramental grace; and this is principally signified in the Sacraments of the new law. — And by this it is clear concerning the flesh, because the flesh is not signified as flesh, but as refreshing.

4. To that which is objected, that they are from artifice; it must be said that the aptitude is from nature, but the perfection from human work[^15]; thus also Christ from his origin had the aptitude of feeding, but was made food in act by the cooking in the fire of the passion and the pressing in the winepress of the cross; so it is in the sign itself, namely bread and wine.

5. And by this is clear what follows, which it objects, that it does not signify the passion; for it must be said that this is false, rather it does signify [it] through the cooking, or also the pressing. It could nevertheless be said[^16] that Christ is not expressed as suffering principally, but as food.

6. To that which is objected, that it is the food of little ones; it must be said that it is the food of little ones and of the humble, yet of those who have in some way grown, not of those coming to the faith. Whence Augustine[^17]: "I am the food of the grown; grow, and you shall eat me," etc. And therefore it was instituted in bread, not in milk.

7. To that which is objected concerning wine, that it does not heal; it must be said that wine is given to those already convalescing and not to those actually being made sick; in which is signified that this Sacrament ought to be given to those already confident through a good conscience, not to those lying in the bed of sin[^18].

8. To that which is objected, that it increases lust; it must be said that it does this when it is taken to drunkenness, not when it is taken for refreshment and gladness, with sobriety preserved.

la: Cfr. Matth. 26, 26. seqq. Vide etiam supra pag. 194, nota 1.

en: Cf. Matthew 26, 26 ff. See also above p. 194, note 1.

la: Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 6. Verba vide supra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. fundam. 1. — Quod panis et vinum fuerint Sacramenta legis naturae, insinuatur supra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. In fine arg. pro *concurrit* codd. EFG L *crevit*.

en: Book I *On the Sacraments* p. IX. c. 6. For the words see above d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. fundamentum 1. — That bread and wine were Sacraments of the law of nature is suggested above d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. At the end of the argument, for *concurrit* codices EFG L [read] *crevit*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Cf. above d. 8. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2.

en: As was shown above d. 1. p. I. q. 2.

la: Epist. I. Cor. 3, 1. seq.: *Tanquam parvulis in Christo lac vobis potum dedi, non escam.* — In maiori, quae est secundum August., Enarrat. in Ps. 33. enarrat. 1. n. 6, post *parvulorum* Vat. addit *et humilium*.

en: I Corinthians 3, 1 f.: *As to little ones in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food.* — In the major [premise], which is according to Augustine, *Enarrations on the Psalms* on Ps. 33, enarration 1, n. 6, after *of little ones* the Vatican [edition] adds *and of the humble*.

la: Vers. 1.

en: Verse 1.

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

la: Superius pro *facerent unum*, quod habent codd. PQ, codd. E L aa *essent unum* [codd. E aa *in unum*], alii codd. tantum *in unum*, edd. *aggregantur in unum*.

en: Above, for *facerent unum*, which codices PQ have, codices E L aa [read] *essent unum* [codices E aa *in unum*], other codices only *in unum*, the editions *aggregantur in unum*.

la: Cfr. Ioan. 6, 27. seqq. — Immediate post cod. aa addit *ut sit cibus*.

en: Cf. John 6, 27 ff. — Immediately after, codex aa adds *that it may be food*.

la: Respicitur Ps. 103, 14. seq.: *Ut educas panem de terra, et vinum laetificet cor hominis... et panis cor hominis confirmet.*

en: Reference is made to Ps. 103, 14 f.: *That you may bring forth bread from the earth, and that wine may gladden the heart of man... and that bread may strengthen the heart of man.*

la: Florentiae in bibliotheca Laurentiana habetur opus huius auctoris in cod. (Plut. LXXIII. n. XLII. membr. in fol. parv. saec. XIV. ineunt.), qui fol. 1. exhibet librum *Dietarum universalium*, cuius initium est: *Quoniam imprimis coegit antiquos disputare de naturis*. In dicto cod. fol. 14. v. haec leguntur: « Cibaria subtilia sunt triplicia... aut in passione et substantia subtilia, sicut panis de grano bene coctus et carnes perdicum... propterea quia actioni naturae obedientia, et laudabilissimus sanguis est, quem generant... ideoque hoc cibarium utilissimum in sanitate sanis custodienda et infirmis reddenda » etc. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 1. § 7. inter alias rationes pro congruentia vini de vite ad Sacramentum hanc affert, « quae habetur ab Isaac in *Dietis particularibus*: vinum bonum dat nutrimentum corpori, sanitatem reddit et custodit, si accipiatur, secundum quod oportet ». Cfr. cod. Vat. Reg. 1304 (Romae) fol. 79. et fol. 105-108. Praedicta duo opera Isaaci (Ishak), filii Salomonis, arabico idiomate scripta, in Latinum transtulit Constantinus Africanus (XI. saeculo), et impressa sunt Lugduni 1515.

en: At Florence in the Laurentian library there is found a work of this author in a codex (Plut. LXXIII. n. XLII, parchment in small folio, early 14th cent.), which at fol. 1 exhibits the book of *Universal Diets*, whose beginning is: *Since first of all it compelled the ancients to dispute about natures*. In the said codex at fol. 14v these things are read: "Subtle foods are of three kinds... or subtle in passion and substance, like bread of grain well cooked and the flesh of partridges... because [they are] obedient to the action of nature, and most praiseworthy is the blood which they generate... and therefore this food [is] most useful for preserving the healthy in health and for restoring the sick" etc. Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 1. § 7, among other reasons for the fittingness of wine of the vine to the Sacrament, brings forward this one, "which is had from Isaac in the *Particular Diets*: good wine gives nourishment to the body, restores and preserves health, if it be taken as it ought." Cf. codex Vat. Reg. 1304 (Rome) fol. 79 and fol. 105-108. The aforesaid two works of Isaac (Ishak), son of Solomon, written in the Arabic tongue, Constantine the African (11th cent.) translated into Latin, and they were printed at Lyons in 1515.

la: Libr. IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13, ubi textus originalis *aquam et vinum* pro *vinum* substituit, et verba *in quibus vita conservatur* omittit.

en: Book IV *On the Orthodox Faith* c. 13, where the original text substitutes *water and wine* for *wine*, and omits the words *in which life is preserved*.

la: Codd. N aa *evidentiora facta sunt*, quibus verbis cod. aa addit *in lege gratiae*.

en: Codices N aa [read] *they were made more evident*, to which words codex aa adds *in the law of grace*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — De seq. propos. vide supra pag. 204, nota 1; Tertull., IV. Contra Marcion. c. 40, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 2.

en: Cf. above d. 1. p. I. q. 2. ad 5. — On the following proposition see above p. 204, note 1; Tertullian, *Against Marcion* IV. c. 40, and here the text of the Master, c. 2.

la: Libr. VII. Confess. c. 10. n. 16. Verba vide supra pag. 187, nota 6. — Pro *creverunt* codd. R S *crediderunt*.

en: Book VII *Confessions* c. 10. n. 16. For the words see above p. 187, note 6. — For *creverunt* codices R S [read] *crediderunt*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 9. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2. et infra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 2. seq.

en: Cf. above d. 9. a. 2. q. 2. ad 2, and below d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 2 f.

latin_scholion:
**I.** De materia eucharistiae, de qua tractant haec et tres seqq. quaestiones, agit Decretum pro Armenis Eugenii IV. in Bulla *Exsultate Deo*. — De congruentia utriusque speciei agunt: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 2. — Scot., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 6. et 7. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 2; S. III. q. 74. a. 1. — B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 2. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 1. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. — Durand., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seqq. qq. hic q. 3.

<!-- page 256 -->

**II.** Respectu 2. quaestionis certum nunc est apud omnes (contra nonnullos antiquos), consecrationem utriusque speciei non esse de necessitate ipsius Sacramenti, scilicet ut valide consecretur, esse tamen de necessitate praecepti divini. De 2. quaestione: Alex. Hal. loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 1. — S. Thom. IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1, et hic q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. ad 4; S. III. q. 78. a. 6. — B. Albert., loc. cit. a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 8. q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 1. 3.

**III.** Quaestionem 3. concorditer solvunt: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 8. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; S. III. q. 74. a. 6. 7. 8. — B. Albert., hic a. 9. 10. 11. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 4. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 1. 2. 4. — Durand., hic q. 5.

**IV.** Circa 4. quaestionem Catechismus Rom. (de eucharist. n. 13.) docet, quod « nullus panis nisi triticeus apta ad Sacramentum materia putandus est ». Dubitatur autem de quibusdam speciebus frumenti, ut de spelta vel farre, utrum specifice, an tantum accidentaliter a tritico differant, de quibus vide S. Thom., loc. cit. q. 3. ad 2. et casuistas. De eadem quaestione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 2. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3; S. c. Gent. IV. c. 69. — B. Albert., loc. cit. a. 7. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 2. — Durand., hic q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 3.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the matter of the Eucharist, of which these and the three following questions treat, the Decree for the Armenians of Eugenius IV in the Bull *Exsultate Deo* treats. — Concerning the fittingness of each species treat: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 2. — Scotus, on this and the following questions, here q. 6 and 7. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 1. 2; *Summa* III. q. 74. a. 1. — Bl. Albert, IV Sent. d. 2. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 1. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 1. — Durandus, on this and the following question, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following questions, here q. 3.

<!-- page 256 -->

**II.** With respect to the 2nd question, it is now certain among all (against certain ancients) that the consecration of both species is not of the necessity of the Sacrament itself, namely [necessary] for it to be validly consecrated, yet that it is of the necessity of a divine precept. Concerning the 2nd question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 1. — St. Thomas, IV Sent. d. 8. q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 1, and here q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 1. ad 4; *Summa* III. q. 78. a. 6. — Bl. Albert, loc. cit. a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, IV Sent. d. 8. q. 3. a. 1. subquestion 1. 3.

**III.** The 3rd question they solve concordantly: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 4. a. 1. § 8. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 1; *Summa* III. q. 74. a. 6. 7. 8. — Bl. Albert, here a. 9. 10. 11. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 4. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3. q. 1. 2. 4. — Durandus, here q. 5.

**IV.** Concerning the 4th question, the Roman Catechism (on the Eucharist, n. 13) teaches that "no bread except wheaten is to be reckoned matter apt for the Sacrament." But it is doubted concerning certain kinds of grain, such as spelt or emmer, whether they differ from wheat specifically or only accidentally, concerning which see St. Thomas, loc. cit. q. 3. ad 2, and the casuists. Concerning this same question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 2. 4. — St. Thomas, here q. 2. a. 2; *Summa* loc. cit. a. 3; *Summa contra Gentiles* IV. c. 69. — Bl. Albert, loc. cit. a. 7. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2. q. 2. — Durandus, here q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 3.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 254–256; pdf pp. 274–276 at +20; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 28650–28850) as base for the clean videtur/contra running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, Solutio replies, all footers, and the scholion were cascade-shattered in OCR (two-column bleed) and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The opener (`utrum hoc Sacramentum confici debeat in specie panis et vini`) matches ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I, confirmed against the PDF (p.254: ARTICULUS I, *De speciebus, in quibus nunc conficit Ecclesia*, QUAESTIO I, *Utrum eucharistia confici debeat in specie panis et vini*). Aligned. Per the locked chunking convention, the short ARTICULUS I opener (`Ad intelligentiam huius partis... Circa primum quaeruntur breviter quatuor`) is folded into q1; there is no standalone divisio chunk for this article. (The pars-level DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM precedes raw line 28650 and is held by the d.11-p2-divisio chunk.)

**Running head.** p.255 recto top reads **"DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. 255"** — page-verify PASSES (DIST. XI, not X). p.254 verso top = "254 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line). p.256 verso top = "256 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV.".

**Page span.** Body (fundamenta + contra + Respondeo) on p.254; Solutio replies 1–8 finish on p.255. The Articulus I scholion (sections I–IV) is printed at the foot of p.255 (section I) and continues onto p.256 (sections II–IV), ending just before QUAESTIO II on p.256. printed_pages = [254, 255, 256].

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 18 footnotes, all paired in both bodies. Page 254 (per-page restart) notes 1–8 anchor in the videtur args + Respondeo and map to [^1]–[^8] in body order (n1=consecratio, n2=Hugo, n3=offerebatur, n4=repraesentare, n5=Luc.22, n6=lac, n7=Prov., n8=corpus mysticum). Page 255 (per-page restart) notes 1–10 anchor in the Respondeo overflow + Solutio replies and map to [^9]–[^18] in body order (n1=facerent unum→[^9], n2=Ioan.6→[^10], n3=Ps.103→[^11], n4=Isaac/Florentiae→[^12], n5=Damasc.→[^13], n6=evidentiora facta→[^14], n7=Dist.1.p.1.q.5→[^15], n8=Tertull./Posset dici→[^16], n9=Confess.→[^17], n10=lecto peccati→[^18]). No footers spill to neighboring chunks within q1's range.

**Scholion disposition (★ ownership).** This chunk OWNS the Articulus I scholion in full. It is question-keyed: **I** = the 1st question (materia / congruentia utriusque speciei) — the article's lead; **II** = the 2nd question (necessity of consecrating both species) + "De 2. quaestione" parallel-author list; **III** = the 3rd question ("Quaestionem 3. concorditer solvunt"); **IV** = the 4th question ("Circa 4. quaestionem", wheaten-bread matter) + "De eadem quaestione" list. Rendered in full (both languages), body-first / scholion-last per the parser gotcha. Sections span p.255 (I) → p.256 (II–IV), ending immediately before QUAESTIO II. Sibling questions a1-q2, a1-q3, a1-q4 render `has_scholion: false` and point here. No second distinct scholion block appears within q1's raw range; the next scholion belongs to QUAESTIO II (begins raw line ~28851, page 256).

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands. OCR garbles silently corrected per CLAUDE.md (e.g. `eucharisiia`→`eucharistia`, `clebeat`→`debeat`, `Sacraraentum`→`Sacramentum`, `spccie`→`specie`, `calholicae`→`catholicae`, `aucloritatem`→`auctoritatem`, `Ilera/Ilem`→`Item`, `lioc`→`hoc`, `cilnis/cilDus`→`cibus`, `conflcere`→`conficere`, `institulum`→`institutum`, `confldentibus`→`confidentibus`, `spolta`→`spelta`).


title: Dist. 11, Part 2, Art. 1, Q. 2

source_text:
<!-- page 256 -->

### Quaestio II. *Utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti.*

Secundo quaeritur, utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia Dominus, cum illud Sacramentum tradidit, in utraque specie confecit[^1]; sed non est Sacramentum completum, nisi secundum quod ipse instituit: ergo etc.

2. Item, forma verbi est de integritate Sacramenti[^2]; sed forma corporis non est nisi super panem, et forma sanguinis non est nisi super vinum: ergo utraque species est de integritate.

3. Item, nullum Sacramentum est iterandum quamdiu manet: ergo nec consecratio supra consecrationem est addenda, cum est perfecta[^3]; sed ad consecrationem panis additur consecratio vini: ergo nondum est perfecta: ergo etc.

4. Item, in hoc Sacramento exprimitur mysterium nostrae redemptionis; sed hoc non fit in solo pane, sive in corpore, sed etiam in sanguine[^4]: et sic etc.

**Contra:**
1. In hoc Sacramento quantum ad speciem panis totus Christus continetur, nec aliquid amplius in duobus quam in uno, nec aliud, sed omnino idem: ergo videtur, quod non sit de integritate species vini; quia, illa remota, remanet totum completum.

2. Item, fideles integrum et perfectum Sacramentum recipiunt, nec recipiunt nisi in altera specie tantum: ergo etc.

3. Item, quaero: quae necessitas est in hoc Sacramento sanguinem Christi significari? Si quia de integritate; multo magis anima: ergo anima multo magis debet significari. Si dicas, quod in hoc significatur anima, quia « sedes animae est in sanguine », ut dicit Magister[^5]; contra: anima ut perfectio est in toto corpore et in singulis partibus, non ergo in sanguine. Praeterea, quaedam animalia sunt sine sanguine.

4. Item, baptismus est Sacramentum valens ad remedium corporis et animae[^6]; et tamen non est ibi signum nisi unicum: ergo nec hic.

> **Conclusio.** Utraque species est de integritate Sacramenti eucharistiae quoad significantiam, sed non quoad efficaciam.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in Sacramento duo sunt, scilicet efficacia et significantia. Esse igitur de integritate Sacramenti dupliciter est: aut quantum ad efficaciam; et sic neutra species est de integritate, sed in qualibet totum[^7], quod habet efficaciam; aut quantum ad significationem, et sic sunt de integritate, quia in neutra per se exprimitur res huius Sacramenti, sed in utraque simul. Et hoc patet sic.

Hic significatur Christus cibus perfecte reficiens manducantes sacramentaliter et spiritualiter; perfecta autem refectio non est in pane tantum nec in vino tantum, sed in utroque: ideo non in uno tantum perfecte significatur ut reficiens, sed in utroque[^8]. — Reficit autem hoc Sacramentum non quoscumque, sed manducantes spiritualiter. Manducare

<!-- page 257 -->

autem spiritualiter est recognoscere et affici circa eius passionem, quae fuit in corporis eius multiplici afflictione et sanguinis effusione; in quo manifestatur immensa Dei caritas, et in hoc anima perfecte reficitur et delectatur[^9]; et ideo utrumque distincte significatur, scilicet corpus et sanguis. — Rursus, delectatio et refectio non est in passione, quia passio, sed quia nostra redemptio; ibi etiam mira nostra utilitas nos delectat, et quia redempti sumus in corpore et anima — ad hoc[^10] est perfecta redemptio et Christus exposuit corpus et animam — et ideo, ut perfecta esset vel significaretur redemptio, et ex hoc perfecta refectio; debuit significari corpus in pane et anima, cuius sedes est in sanguine, in vino[^11].

Ratio igitur integritatis est significantia Christi nos perfecte reficientis in meditatione suae amantissimae passionis et nostrae iucundae redemptionis, quae non per alterum horum perfecte significari potuit, sed per utrumque.

**Ad argumenta:**

1. 2. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo ad oppositum, patet[^12], quia, etsi totum in utraque specie contineatur, non tamen per alterum perfecte significatur. Et ideo fideles perfectum Sacramentum recipiunt, quia ad efficaciam recipiunt; sed quantum ad significantiam sufficit, quod Ecclesia faciat in eorum praesentia; nec oportet, quod ipsi recipiant, propter periculum effusionis et propter periculum erroris, quia non crederent simplices, in altera specie totum Christum recipere. — Exemplum patet de eo cui exivit sanguis ab hostia, quia non credebat, quod esset sanguis in specie corporis.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur tertio: quae necessitas est, quare oporteat, sanguinem significari; dicendum, quod hoc est tum propter passionem, tum propter animae redemptionem. Anima enim cum sit spiritualis, non potuit in se significari, sed in annexo, ut puta in sanguine, in quo est sedes animae, non quia in solo sanguine, sed quia anima rationalis unitur mediante potentia sentiendi, et illa mediante potentia vegetandi, et illa, cum habeat tres virtutes[^13], prima, fundamentum omnium, est nutritiva et nutrimentum sanguinis, vel aliquid loco eius: ideo etc.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de baptismo, dicendum, quod baptismus principaliter significat mortem et sepulturam, sed hoc Sacramentum significat Christum passum; et quoniam passus est in anima et in carne, passus corporis afflictione et sanguinis effusione: ideo utrumque hic significari debet. Unde non est simile; tamen ista non est tota causa nec principalis, sed principalis est significatio refectionis perfectae secundum statum viae. — Causae autem congruentiae multae sunt et accipiuntur tum ex propria significatione, quam efficit Sacramentum, et haec est nostra refectio; tum rei, quam significat allegorice, et haec est Christi passio. — Refectio autem potest significari ut perfecta; et sic significatur per haec duo quantum ad modum duplicem, quia alii suaviter, alii cum maiori labore reficiuntur; prima significatur per sanguinem et speciem vini, secunda per speciem panis. Vel quantum ad effectus: quia confortat, et hoc per speciem panis; et laetificat sive delectat, et hoc per vinum. — Quantum ad significationem allegoricam debet significari corpus et anima, quia Christus utramque assumsit et in utraque passus est et utramque redemit. — Et haec omnia ad congruitatem faciunt; et institutio, quae praeexigit congruitatem, superveniens inducit necessitatem[^14].

english:
### Question II. *Whether each of these species belongs to the integrity of the sacrament.*

Secondly it is asked whether each of these species belongs to the integrity of the sacrament. And that it does, it seems:

1. Because the Lord, when he handed down that Sacrament, consecrated in each species[^1]; but the Sacrament is not complete except according to what he himself instituted: therefore, etc.

2. Likewise, the form of the word belongs to the integrity of the Sacrament[^2]; but the form of the body is only over bread, and the form of the blood is only over wine: therefore each species belongs to the integrity.

3. Likewise, no Sacrament is to be repeated as long as it remains: therefore neither is a consecration to be added upon a consecration, when it is complete[^3]; but to the consecration of the bread the consecration of the wine is added: therefore it is not yet complete: therefore, etc.

4. Likewise, in this Sacrament the mystery of our redemption is expressed; but this does not come about in the bread alone, that is, in the body, but also in the blood[^4]: and so, etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. In this Sacrament, as regards the species of bread, the whole Christ is contained, nor anything more in the two than in the one, nor anything other, but altogether the same: therefore it seems that the species of wine does not belong to the integrity; because, that being removed, the whole remains complete.

2. Likewise, the faithful receive the whole and perfect Sacrament, and they receive it only in the other species: therefore, etc.

3. Likewise, I ask: what necessity is there in this Sacrament that the blood of Christ be signified? If [it be said] because [it belongs] to the integrity, much more does the soul: therefore the soul much more ought to be signified. If you say that in this [the blood] the soul is signified, because "the seat of the soul is in the blood," as the Master says[^5]; on the contrary: the soul as a perfection is in the whole body and in its individual parts, therefore not [merely] in the blood. Moreover, certain animals are without blood.

4. Likewise, baptism is a Sacrament availing for the remedy of body and soul[^6]; and yet there is there but a single sign: therefore neither [should there be two signs] here.

> **Conclusion.** Each species belongs to the integrity of the sacrament of the Eucharist as regards signification, but not as regards efficacy.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that in the Sacrament there are two things, namely efficacy and signification. To belong to the integrity of the Sacrament is therefore twofold: either as regards efficacy — and thus neither species belongs to the integrity, but in each is the whole[^7], which has the efficacy; or as regards signification — and thus they do belong to the integrity, because in neither one by itself is the reality of this Sacrament expressed, but in both together. And this is shown thus.

Here is signified Christ the food perfectly refreshing those who eat sacramentally and spiritually; but perfect refreshment is not in bread alone nor in wine alone, but in both: therefore it is not in one alone that he is perfectly signified as refreshing, but in both[^8]. — But this Sacrament refreshes not just anyone, but those who eat spiritually. To eat

spiritually, however, is to recognize and to be affected concerning his passion, which was in the manifold affliction of his body and the shedding of his blood; in which is manifested the immense charity of God, and in this the soul is perfectly refreshed and delighted[^9]; and therefore each is distinctly signified, namely the body and the blood. — Again, the delight and refreshment is not in the passion, because [it is] a passion, but because [it is] our redemption; there too our wondrous benefit delights us, and because we have been redeemed in body and soul — for this[^10] there is perfect redemption and Christ exposed body and soul — and therefore, so that the redemption might be perfect or might be signified, and from this the refreshment perfect; the body had to be signified in the bread, and the soul, whose seat is in the blood, in the wine[^11].

The ground, then, of the integrity is the signification of Christ perfectly refreshing us in the meditation of his most loving passion and of our joyful redemption, which could not be perfectly signified by either one of these, but by both.

**To the arguments:**

1. 2. To that which is objected first to the contrary, it is clear[^12] that, although the whole is contained in each species, nevertheless it is not perfectly signified by either one. And therefore the faithful receive the perfect Sacrament, because they receive it as to efficacy; but as regards signification it suffices that the Church do it in their presence; nor is it necessary that they themselves receive [both], on account of the danger of spilling and on account of the danger of error, because the simple would not believe that under the other species they receive the whole Christ. — The example is clear from the man from whom blood came forth from the host, because he did not believe that there was blood under the species of the body.

3. To that which is objected thirdly: what necessity is there that the blood ought to be signified; it must be said that this is both on account of the passion and on account of the redemption of the soul. For the soul, since it is spiritual, could not be signified in itself, but in something annexed, as for instance in the blood, in which is the seat of the soul — not because [it is] in the blood alone, but because the rational soul is united by means of the power of sensing, and that by means of the power of vegetating, and that, since it has three powers[^13], the first, the foundation of all, is the nutritive power and the nourishment of the blood, or something in its place: therefore, etc.

4. To that which is objected concerning baptism, it must be said that baptism principally signifies death and burial, but this Sacrament signifies Christ as having suffered; and since he suffered in soul and in flesh, suffered by the affliction of the body and the shedding of the blood: therefore both ought here to be signified. Hence the case is not alike; yet this is not the whole cause nor the principal one, but the principal one is the signification of the perfect refreshment according to the state of the wayfarer. — Now the causes of fittingness are many and are taken both from the proper signification which the Sacrament effects, and this is our refreshment; and from the reality which it signifies allegorically, and this is Christ's passion. — Now refreshment can be signified as perfect; and thus it is signified by these two as to a twofold mode, because some are refreshed gently, others with greater labor; the first is signified by the blood and the species of wine, the second by the species of bread. Or as to effects: because it strengthens, and this by the species of bread; and it gladdens or delights, and this by the wine. — As to the allegorical signification, body and soul ought to be signified, because Christ assumed both and in both suffered and both he redeemed. — And all these things make for fittingness; and the institution, which presupposes fittingness, supervening induces necessity[^14].

la: Vide Matth. 26, 26. seqq. — Superius voci *Sacramenti* codd. R S bb praemittunt *huius.*

en: See Matthew 26:26 ff. — Above, to the word *Sacramenti* codices R S bb prefix *huius.*

la: Ut habetur supra in lit. Magistri, d. III. c. 1, et Comment. p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

en: As is held above in the text of the Master, d. III. c. 1, and Commentary p. I. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. circa finem.

en: Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4, near the end.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 4, in quo etiam 1. arg. ad oppos. insinuatur.

en: See here the text of the Master, c. 4, in which the 1st argument to the contrary is also suggested.

la: Hic c. 4. — Quod anima sit tota in toto corpore et in qualibet parte eiusdem, ostensum est I. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. — Post *significatur anima* cod. L addit *ratione vini significantis sanguinem.*

en: Here c. 4. — That the soul is whole in the whole body and in each part of the same, was shown in I Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3. — After *significatur anima* codex L adds *ratione vini significantis sanguinem* (by reason of the wine signifying the blood).

la: Hilar., Comment. in Matth. c. 10. n. 24, dicit, quod baptismi lavacro simus « anima et corpore innovati ». Cfr. supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2.

en: Hilary, *Commentary on Matthew* c. 10. n. 24, says that by the laver of baptism we are "renewed in soul and body." Cf. above d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2. ad 2.

la: Scil. totus Christus. — Pro *in qualibet* cod. W et edd. *quaelibet* (edd. addunt *est*).

en: That is, the whole Christ. — For *in qualibet* codex W and the editions [read] *quaelibet* (the editions add *est*).

la: Cfr. supra d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2, et Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 3.

en: Cf. above d. 8. p. II. a. 2. q. 2, and Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 3.

la: Ut ostensum est supra d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.

en: As was shown above d. 9. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Ita edd. et plurimi codd., cod. II *ad hoc enim etiam*, cod. X *et hoc*, cod. O *hoc.* — Post *Rursus* fortasse excidit *quia.*

en: Thus the editions and very many codices; codex II [reads] *ad hoc enim etiam*, codex X *et hoc*, codex O *hoc.* — After *Rursus* perhaps *quia* has fallen out.

la: Haec ratio affertur etiam ab Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 21. — Inferius voci *reficientis* cod. Z praemittit *redimentis et.* Subinde pro *amantissimae* codd. M O S X *amarissimae.*

en: This reason is brought forward also by Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 21. — Below, to the word *reficientis* codex Z prefixes *redimentis et.* Thereupon for *amantissimae* codices M O S X [read] *amarissimae.*

la: Edd. supplent *responsio*, et paulo inferius post *perfectum Sacramentum* addunt *sub una specie.*

en: The editions supply *responsio*, and a little below after *perfectum Sacramentum* add *sub una specie.*

la: In edd. subiungitur glossa *scilicet generativam, augmentativam et nutritivam.* Cfr. Aristot., II. de Anima, text. 27. seqq. (c. 3.).

en: In the editions there is subjoined the gloss *namely the generative, augmentative, and nutritive [powers].* Cf. Aristotle, *On the Soul* II, text 27 ff. (c. 3.).

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4, et a. 2. q. 1. seq. — Mox ex codd. E F substituimus *Christum* pro *eum* (cod. aa *tantum*).

en: Cf. above d. 3. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. ad 4, and a. 2. q. 1 f. — Presently from codices E F we have substituted *Christum* for *eum* (codex aa [reads] *tantum*).

latin_scholion:
*Articuli I scholion (sectiones I–IV, quaestiones 1–4 complectens) cum Quaestione I exhibetur; vide* `bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`.

---

english_scholion:
*The scholion of Articulus I (sections I–IV, covering questions 1–4) is rendered with Question I; see* `bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 256–257; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 28851–29007) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, Solutio tail, and all footers were cascade-shattered in the two-column OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** Opener confirmed: "Secundo quaeritur, utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti" (PDF p.256, QUAESTIO II, title *Utrum utraque harum specierum sit de integritate Sacramenti*). Aligned with the q2 frontmatter title.

**Page span — CORRECTION.** q2 spans printed pp. **256–257**, NOT 255–256 as the dispatch estimated. p.255 (recto, running head "DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.", folio "255") holds q1's Solutio tail (Ad 4–8) and the Articulus I SCHOLION (section I onward); the q1 scholion (sections II, III) tails onto the top of p.256 left column, after which QUAESTIO II begins. q2's Respondeo continues onto p.257 (running head "DIST. XI. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III." — reads q3 because q3 opens lower on that page). QUAESTIO III ("Utrum aqua sit de integritate Sacramenti") begins at the bottom of p.257 left and is owned by a1-q3. pdf_pages = [276, 277] (pdf = printed + 20).

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 14 footnotes. Page 256 (per-page restart) notes 1–8 are all anchored in q2's body (videtur args 1–4, Contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo opening) → [^1]–[^8]. Page 257 (per-page restart) notes 1–6 are anchored in q2's Respondeo continuation + Solutio (n1→*reficitur et delectatur*, n2→*ad hoc*, n3→*in vino*, n4→*patet/responsio*, n5→*tres virtutes* gloss, n6→*necessitatem/Christum* substitution) → [^9]–[^14] by body order. Page 257 right-column footers numbered 7+ anchor in QUAESTIO III's body and belong to **a1-q3**. Page 256's scholion-block footers (Decretum pro Armenis etc.) belong with the Articulus I scholion under **q1**.

**Scholion disposition.** Articulus I carries a single question-keyed scholion (sections I–IV, covering qq.1–4), printed under QUAESTIO I on p.255 and tailing onto p.256 left. Per the locked convention it is rendered in full with **q1** (`bon-sent-IV-d11-p2-a1-q1`), not here. The `### Scholion` slot here holds a one-line La+En cross-reference; `has_scholion: false`. NOTE: a distinct "SCHOLION." header does fall on p.255 and its tail (sections II/III + scholion-block footers) lies inside the OCR raw range 28851–29007 — but it is q1's article-level scholion, so it is forwarded to q1 (still an auto-chunked skeleton as of this writing), not rendered here.

**Hand-offs.**
- *Forwarded to q1:* the Articulus I SCHOLION (sections I–IV) printed on p.255 and tailing onto p.256-left; the p.256 scholion-block footers; q1's own p.255 Solutio footers (Ad 4–8).
- *Forwarded to q3:* p.257 right-column footers numbered 7+ (anchored in QUAESTIO III "Utrum aqua sit de integritate"); q3 opens at the bottom of p.257 left column.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands (p.256 and p.257 column crops).