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

source_text:
<!-- page 222 -->

### Quaestio IV. *Utrum corpus Christi sit dimensive sive circumscriptive sub illis speciebus.*

Quarto quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit dimensive sub illis speciebus sive circumscriptive. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia omne quod habet extensionem sive dimensionem et ab illa non abstrahitur, si est alicubi, est ibi dimensive[^1]; sed corpus Christi sub Sacramento non abstrahitur a dimensione, cum sit organicum ibi et habeat partem extra partem: ergo est ibi dimensive sive circumscriptive.

2. Item, corpus Christi non abstrahitur a suis proprietatibus; sed sicut dicit philosophus in Sex principiis[^2]: « Proprium est positionis primo loco adhaerere substantiae », ergo si non abstrahitur ab aliis proprietatibus magis remotis, nec a positione. Sed positio est ordinatio partium in loco: ergo etc.

<!-- page 223 -->

3. Item, omne corpus, quod est alicubi localiter, est ibi circumscriptive; sed corpus Christi in Sacramento est localiter, quia dicit Innocentius[^3], quod « in pluribus locis existit »; sed hoc non est nisi sub Sacramento: ergo etc.

4. Item, omne corpus, quod est alicubi, ita quod nec excedit nec exceditur ab eo, in quo est, non est tantum localiter sed etiam[^4] circumscriptive, et dimensive; sed corpus Christi taliter est sub Sacramento: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. Esse definitive est superius ad esse circumscriptive; sed corpus Christi non est definitive sub Sacramento, ut probatum est[^5]: ergo etc.

2. Item, omne quod est dimensive alicubi, aequatur illi, in quo est: ergo si dimensive est, aequatur hostiae; scindatur ergo hostia, et tunc similiter aequabitur parti: ergo unum et idem est aequale parti et toti; quod quidem Deus non potest facere, quia tunc idem esset maius et minus se ipso, et duo contradictorie opposita simul vera, et bicubitum aequale monocubito[^6].

3. Item, omne quod est in aliquo conterminative; si sit dimensive, necesse est esse configurative; hoc patet: ergo cum corpus Christi sit ibi conterminative, quia nec excedit nec exceditur; si est dimensive, est eiusdem figurae: ergo orbicularis et subtilis.

4. Item, omne quod est alicubi inseparabiliter, si est ibi dimensive, movetur ad motum eius, in quo est, sive transferatur, sive transvertatur; sed corpus Christi est in hostia inseparabiliter: ergo si est ibi dimensive, sicut hostia vertitur, ita et corpus, et ita habebit aliquando caput superius, aliquando pedes. — Si ad haec omnia respondeas per miraculum, quia illud esset verum, si esset per naturam; hoc non solvit: quia per miraculum numquam separatur definitio a definito; sed istae rationes procedunt non secundum accidentales proprietates, sed per proprias rationes sive definitiones.

> ### Conclusio.
> Corpus Christi, habens suam propriam dimensionem, non dimensionem hostiae, non est in ea dimensive.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud dicitur esse dimensive alicubi, quod ita est in illo, quod totum in toto et pars in parte secundum commensurationem; et huiusmodi non debuit esse corpus Christi sub Sacramento, quia tunc necessarium esset illi aequari et configurari, sicut probant rationes praedictae. Sed hoc non congruebat veritati Sacramenti, quia, sicut supra[^7] probatum est, ad veritatem Sacramenti requiritur, quod sit ibi in quantitate sua; et si aequaretur hostiae, non esset ibi in sua quantitate, sed conformaretur non in sua figura; et ideo hoc non debuit fieri, sed debuit fieri, ut corpus habens suam perfectionem esset in illa hostia; et ita habens suam dimensionem, non esset ibi dimensive. — Concedendae ergo sunt rationes ad hoc inductae.

**Solutio oppositorum:** 1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod habet dimensionem est dimensive; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, si sit ibi sicut locatum in loco; sed non est ibi sic, sed tanquam significatum contentum in signo[^8]; et quia eodem modo significatur in parva hostia ut in magna, eodem modo continetur.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non abstrahitur a proprietatibus; dicendum, quod proprietates corporis Christi sunt duplices: quaedam absolutae, ut esse bicubitum et talis figurae; quaedam relatae, ut videri et tangi et tantum locum occupare. Ab absolutis non abstrahitur, sed a comparatis abstrahitur, tum propter veritatem Sacramenti, qua oportet, ut magnum corpus sit in parva specie, tum propter utilitatem fidei, qua oportet occultari[^9]. Secundum hoc sciendum, quod positio est ordinatio partium in toto, et ab hac non abstrahitur — de hac loquitur philosophus — et partium in loco, et ab hac abstrahitur propter Sacramenti veritatem.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod est ibi localiter; dicendum, quod aliquid dicitur esse localiter aut quia secundum corporalem praesentiam est aut quia secundum commensurationem corpori debitam. Primo modo est ibi localiter, secundo modo non, immo tantum in caelo; unde Innocentius[^10] distinguit esse localiter contra esse sacramentaliter.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod conterminative est ibi; dicendum, quod esse conterminative dicitur dupliciter: uno modo privative, quia nec excedit nec exceditur; et sic ex hoc non sequitur esse dimensive; alio modo positive, quia primum respondet primo, et postremum postremo, et medium medio, et quod sic est, est ibi dimensive. Sed sic non est ibi corpus Christi; et ideo non est ibi dimensive sive circumscriptive, quamvis nec excedat nec excedatur, quia medium medio non respondet[^11].

---

english:
<!-- page 222 -->

### Question IV. *Whether the body of Christ is under those species dimensively or circumscriptively.*

Fourthly it is asked whether the body of Christ is under those species dimensively or circumscriptively. And that it is so, seems [to be the case]:

1. Because everything that has extension or dimension and is not abstracted from it, if it is somewhere, is there dimensively[^1]; but the body of Christ under the Sacrament is not abstracted from dimension, since it is organic there and has part outside of part: therefore it is there dimensively or circumscriptively.

2. Likewise, the body of Christ is not abstracted from its properties; but as the Philosopher says in the *Six Principles*[^2]: "It is proper to position first of all to adhere to substance"; therefore if it is not abstracted from the more remote properties, neither [is it abstracted] from position. But position is the ordering of parts in place: therefore etc.

<!-- page 223 -->

3. Likewise, every body that is somewhere locally is there circumscriptively; but the body of Christ in the Sacrament is locally [present], because Innocent[^3] says that "it exists in several places"; but this is so only under the Sacrament: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, every body that is somewhere, such that it neither exceeds nor is exceeded by that in which it is, is not only locally but also[^4] circumscriptively, and dimensively; but the body of Christ is under the Sacrament in such a manner: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. To be definitively is superior to being circumscriptively; but the body of Christ is not definitively under the Sacrament, as has been proved[^5]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, everything that is dimensively somewhere is made equal to that in which it is: therefore if it is dimensively [present], it is made equal to the host; let the host therefore be split, and then likewise it will be made equal to the part: therefore one and the same thing is equal to the part and to the whole; which indeed God cannot bring about, because then the same thing would be greater and less than itself, and two contradictorily opposed things would be true at once, and the two-cubit equal to the one-cubit[^6].

3. Likewise, everything that is in something conterminately; if it be dimensively [there], it must be configuratively [there]; this is plain: therefore since the body of Christ is there conterminately, because it neither exceeds nor is exceeded; if it is dimensively [there], it is of the same figure: therefore round and thin.

4. Likewise, everything that is somewhere inseparably, if it is there dimensively, is moved at its motion in which it is, whether it be carried or turned over; but the body of Christ is inseparably in the host: therefore if it is there dimensively, just as the host is turned, so also the body, and thus it will have at one time its head above, at another its feet. — If to all these you should respond by miracle, [saying] that that would be true if it were by nature; this does not solve [the difficulty]: because by a miracle the definition is never separated from the defined; but these arguments proceed not according to accidental properties, but through proper accounts or definitions.

> ### Conclusion.
> The body of Christ, having its own proper dimension, not the dimension of the host, is not in it dimensively.

**I respond:** It must be said that that is called to be dimensively somewhere which is so in it, that the whole [is] in the whole and the part in the part according to commensuration; and a thing of this kind ought not to have been the case for the body of Christ under the Sacrament, because then it would be necessary for it to be made equal and configured [to the host], as the aforesaid arguments prove. But this was not fitting to the truth of the Sacrament, because, as has been proved above[^7], for the truth of the Sacrament it is required that it be there in its own quantity; and if it were made equal to the host, it would not be there in its own quantity, but would be conformed not in its own figure; and therefore this ought not to have been done, but it ought to have been done that the body, having its own perfection, be in that host; and so, having its own dimension, it would not be there dimensively. — The arguments adduced for this are therefore to be granted.

**Solution of the opposing [arguments]:** 1. To that which is objected, that what has dimension is [there] dimensively; it must be said that this is true if it be there as a thing located in a place; but it is not there in that way, but as the thing signified contained in the sign[^8]; and because it is signified in the same way in a small host as in a large one, it is contained in the same way.

2. To that which is objected, that it is not abstracted from its properties; it must be said that the properties of the body of Christ are twofold: some absolute, as being two-cubit and of such a figure; some relative, as to be seen and touched and to occupy so much place. From the absolute ones it is not abstracted, but from the relative ones it is abstracted, both for the truth of the Sacrament, by which it is required that a great body be in a small species, and for the benefit of faith, by which it is required to be hidden[^9]. According to this it must be known that position is the ordering of parts in the whole, and from this it is not abstracted — of this the Philosopher speaks — and [the ordering] of parts in place, and from this it is abstracted for the truth of the Sacrament.

3. To that which is objected, that it is there locally; it must be said that something is said to be locally [present] either because it is according to bodily presence, or because [it is] according to commensuration owed to a body. In the first way it is there locally, in the second way it is not, but rather only in heaven; whence Innocent[^10] distinguishes being locally [present] against being sacramentally [present].

4. To that which is objected, that it is there conterminately; it must be said that to be conterminately is said in two ways: in one way privatively, because it neither exceeds nor is exceeded; and in this way it does not follow from this that it is dimensively [present]; in another way positively, because the first corresponds to the first, and the last to the last, and the middle to the middle, and what is so is there dimensively. But the body of Christ is not there in this way; and therefore it is not there dimensively or circumscriptively, although it neither exceeds nor is exceeded, because the middle does not correspond to the middle[^11].

---

la: Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. *de Quanto.* — *Minor* ostensa est supra q. 2.

en: Cf. Aristotle, *Categories*, c. on Quantity. — The minor [premise] was shown above in q. 2.

la: Scil. Gilbert. Porret., qui in libro de Sex principiis, c. 6, ait: *Magis autem proprium videtur esse positionis, substantiae proxime assistere, omnibus quidem aliis formis suppositis.*

en: Namely Gilbert of Poitiers, who in the book *On the Six Principles*, c. 6, says: "It seems rather to be proper to position to be most closely present to substance, all the other forms indeed being presupposed."

la: Vide supra pag. 221, nota 3. — De *maiori* cfr. Gilbert. Porret., loc. cit. c. 5. de *Ubi.*

en: See above, p. 221, note 3. — Concerning the major [premise] cf. Gilbert of Poitiers, loc. cit., c. 5, on Where.

la: Vat. addit *conterminative, et per consequens.* Cfr. Aristot., IV. Phys. text. 33. seqq. (c. 4.).

en: The Vatican edition adds "conterminately, and consequently." Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* IV, text 33 ff. (c. 4).

la: Quaest. praeced. — Cfr. Petr. Pictaviensis, V. Sent. c. 12. — Pro *non est* codd. II K P Q *non potest esse.*

en: The preceding question. — Cf. Peter of Poitiers, V *Sentences*, c. 12. — For "is not" the codices II K P Q [read] "cannot be."

la: Sive illi quod est unius [μόνος] cubiti. — Cfr. I. Sent. d. 42. q. 3, ubi de potentia Dei respectu impossibilium.

en: Or [equal] to that which is of a single (*μόνος*) cubit. — Cf. I *Sentences*, d. 42, q. 3, where [it treats] of the power of God with respect to impossibilities.

la: Quaest. 2.

en: Question 2.

la: Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 7, et Comment. p. 1. a. 2. q. 1.

en: Cf. above, the text of the Master, d. VIII, c. 7, and the Commentary, p. 1, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide supra q. 1. et infra d. 12. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2. — Gilbert. Porret., qui hic *philosophus* vocatur, in libro de Sex principiis, c. 6, positionem ita definit: *Positio est quaedam partium situs et generationis ordinatio, secundum quam dicuntur stantia vel sedentia, vel aspera vel lenia, vel quomodolibet aliter disposita; sedere autem et iacere positiones non sunt, sed denominative ab his dicta sunt.* Cfr. Aristot., de Praedicam. c. de Quanto. — Inferius post *positio est* codd. H L bene addunt *duplex, scilicet.*

en: See above, q. 1, and below, d. 12, p. 1, a. 1, q. 2. — Gilbert of Poitiers, who is here called "the Philosopher," in the book *On the Six Principles*, c. 6, defines position thus: "Position is a certain ordering of the situation and generation of parts, according to which things are said to be standing or sitting, or rough or smooth, or disposed in any other way whatever; but to sit and to lie are not positions, but are named denominatively from these." Cf. Aristotle, *Categories*, c. on Quantity. — Below, after "position is," the codices H L rightly add "twofold, namely."

la: Vide supra pag. 221, nota 3.

en: See above, p. 221, note 3.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (raw lines 25224–25342 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`) and then **verified line-by-line against the correctly re-extracted PDF column bands** `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p222-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p223-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` on 2026-06-20. Running head on p.223 confirmed as **DIST. X. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. IV** (the earlier stale bands showing Dist. IX are superseded). English is a fresh literal parallel.

**PDF corrections (cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio + footers).** The OCR-only base carried several errors fixed against the bands:
- Respondeo: OCR had merged "...secundum commensurationem **huiusmodi** non debuit..." — PDF reads "...secundum commensurationem; **et** huiusmodi non debuit...". Restored.
- Respondeo: "requiritur, quod sit **ibi** in quantitate sua" (OCR dropped "ibi"). Restored.
- Respondeo: the OCR had spliced the right-margin gloss **"Conclusio."** into the body ("et ita **conclusio**, habens suam dimensionem"); PDF body reads "et ita habens suam dimensionem, non esset ibi dimensive." Marginal gloss removed (Quaracchi prints "Conclusio." / "Definitio." / "Notandum." etc. as side-glosses, not body text).
- Footnote 4 (Contra 2): the OCR-garbled Greek gloss (rendered `[λόγος?]`) is in fact **μόνος** ("of a single cubit"). Corrected; `[?]` cleared.
- Marker re-anchoring: the OCR cascade had stripped the footnote anchors off objections 3 and 4 and scrambled the footer-text/number mapping. Per the printed page, objection 3 carries p.223 n.1 (Innocentius), objection 4 carries n.2 (etiam), Contra 1 carries n.3 (probatum est), Contra 2 carries n.4 (monocubito). Re-anchored accordingly.
- Solutio ad 2: the OCR had produced **two** markers (on "comparatis" and on "philosophus"); the printed page has a **single** marker on "occultari" (p.223 n.7), whose long footer covers the Gilbert/positio definition. Collapsed to one.

**Alignment confirmed.** Raw L25226 gives the q4 title *Utrum corpus Christi sit dimensive sive circumscriptive sub illis speciebus* and the opener "Quarto quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit dimensive…" — correct for Dist. X, Pars I, Articulus Unicus, Quaestio IV. The next quaestio (QUAESTIO V, "Utrum corpus Christi sit in qualibet parte hostiae," raw L25351) is excluded.

**Page-split map (PDF-verified 2026-06-20).** q4 begins at the very bottom of printed **p. 222** right column (the QUAESTIO IV header + title, the opener "Quarto quaeritur…", objection 1, and the start of objection 2) — the upper two-thirds of p. 222 is the **scholion** to the preceding question (numbered sections II–V, "Distinctio corporis Christi ratione…"). All the rest of q4 (objections 3–4, Contra 1–4, Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutio 1–4) runs across printed **p. 223**. Footers: p.222 has 2 (nn.1–2 → [^1]–[^2]); p.223 has 9 (nn.1–9 → [^3]–[^11]), renumbered continuously by body order.

**Footer ownership.** All footnotes anchored in this q4 body (raw L25224–25342) are claimed here. The q3 footer ("De hac 3. quaestione: Alex. Hal. …", raw L25212) belongs to **a1-q3**. The q5 footer sequence (raw L25351+) belongs to **a1-q5**. No footers are forwarded to neighbors.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. Vol IV d.10-p1 uses inline "De hac N. quaestione" source-notes rather than a per-quaestio Scholion block, and there is no "De hac 4. quaestione" entry in the OCR for q4. The final footnote ([^11]) explicitly directs the reader "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." (to the preceding question's scholion), confirming q4 carries no scholion of its own.

**[?] flags — all cleared 2026-06-20 by PDF verification.** The bands are now correct (running head DIST. X. P. I. ART. UNICUS QUAEST. IV on p.223). Previously-flagged spots resolved:
- [^6] (was [^4]) Greek gloss: confirmed **μόνος**, not λόγος. Resolved.
- Objection 3 "Innocentius" DOES carry its own footer (p.223 n.1, "Vide supra pag. 221, nota 3" → [^3]), distinct from the Solutio ad 3 "Innocentius" footer (p.223 n.8, same cross-reference → [^10]). Both anchored. Resolved.
- No remaining `[?]` flags.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 10, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 224 -->

### Quaestio V. *Utrum corpus Christi sit in qualibet parte hostiae.*

Quinto quaeritur, utrum corpus Christi sit in qualibet parte hostiae. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Quia ita dicit Hilarius, et habetur de Consecratione[^1]: « Ubi pars est, ibi totum »: ergo cum in qualibet parte hostiae sit aliquid de Christo ponere: ergo in qualibet parte est totum ponere.

2. Item, signemus unam partem aeque magnam: impossibile videtur, quod sit ibi pes, sicut quod sit totum corpus: ergo cum maioris nobilitatis sit totum continere quam partem, et non sit maius impossibile; videtur, quod hoc sit tenendum.

3. Item, constat, quod post fractionem est totus Christus in singulis partibus, in quotcumque fiat partitio; sed per fractionem nihil novum ibi efficitur: ergo ante fractionem erat totum in qualibet parte[^2]. Si dicas, quod hoc est ex consequenti, sicut in speculo; non valet, quia in speculo generatur species in singulis partibus ab obiecto; sed ibi non est aliquid amplius bis faciens corpus Christi de novo venire, quia verba longo tempore sunt ante dicta: ergo *semper* est ibi tantum.

4. Item, corpus Christi sub Sacramento sublimatur ad excellentiorem modum essendi quam spiritus — spiritus enim tantum in uno loco est, sed corpus Christi praesens est pluribus[^3] — ergo si spiritus est ita in toto, quod in qualibet parte, multo fortius corpus Christi.

5. Item, in conversione panis est totum homogeneum, ergo quaelibet pars habet rationem totius: ergo cum non sit maior ratio, quare ista pars convertatur in hanc partem quam illa[^4], qua ratione in unam, et in omnes: ergo si quaelibet pars in totum, patet etc.

6. Item, hoc ipsum ostenditur per *impossibile*. Signemus aliquam partem hostiae[^5], aut ibi est *totum*, aut *pars*. Si *totum*, habeo propositum; si *pars*, tunc dividatur hostia; hic aut est *pars*, aut est *totum*. Si *pars*, ergo Christus est divisus; si *totum* et prius non erat: ergo plus continet haec *pars* hostiae quam prius: ergo de necessitate aliquid est ibi conversum in partes, quod prius non fuerat; et ulterius, locus est mutatus, quia pars illa cessit aliis partibus, quae de novo esse ibi incipiunt.

7. Item, esto quod fieret consecratio in pane, qui esset maioris quantitatis quam corpus Christi; tunc vel aliqua *pars* hostiae esset *vacua* a continentia corporis Christi, aut *corpus* Christi est ibi *maius*, quam sit per naturam, aut est in *qualibet parte*. Sed primum est contra perfectionem Sacramenti[^6]; secundum contra perfectionem corporis Christi: ergo tertium est ponendum.

**Sed contra:** 1. Si ubi pars, ibi totum[^7]: ergo ubi una pars, ibi quaelibet: ergo pars non est a parte distincta: ergo corpus Christi est ibi confusum.

2. Item, si totum est in qualibet parte: ergo cum possibile sit, hostiam dividi in infinitum, videtur, quod corpus Christi erit ibi infinities.

3. Item, tantundem facit, si est in toto totum, quantum si est in qualibet parte totum: ergo ponere, quod sit in qualibet parte[^8], est ponere superfluitatem.

4. Item, ad hoc Sacramentum concurrit verbum et elementum et intentio[^9]; sed intentio ministri est, quod sub totali specie totus sit Christus, nec fertur intentio eius super partes, quia partes sunt innumerabiles: ergo in illis non est totus.

### Conclusio.

> Corpus Christi ita est in toto, ut sit totum in qualibet parte, in qua salvatur species totius.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod duplex est hic positio.

Aliquorum enim positio est, quod sub totali specie sit totum corpus, ita quod sub nulla parte totum ante fractionem, sed post fractionem est in qualibet parte totum: et hoc dicunt venire non a *virtute convertendi*, quia hoc non est per conversionem, sed per *inseparabilem unionem*. Sicut enim ubi corpus, ibi anima Christi propter coniunctionem;

<!-- page 225 -->

sic, cum haec pars hostiae[^10] contineat aliquam partem corporis et inseparabiliter; rursus, illa pars non possit dividi ab aliis — quia corpus incorruptibile — propter coniunctionem; qui separat partem ab hostia totum trahit secum. — Et ponunt exemplum in speculo: quia imago habet *esse* spirituale, quod non potest dividi, et in altera parte speculi remanet pars imaginis, similiter et tota. Simile etiam dicunt in anima sensibili[^11], quae nata est esse in corpore annuloso propter consimilem rationem in partibus et toto; unde quando dividitur pars a toto, remanet in ea tota anima. Sic suo modo in proposito. Unde quia non est ponendum in hoc Sacramento, nisi quod necesse est; et ratio cogit, post fractionem esse in partibus divisis hostiae, ante fractionem autem ponere esse in omnibus partibus non cogit: nolunt amplius ponere.

Aliorum opinio est, quod corpus Christi ita est in toto, quod in qualibet parte, in qua salvatur species totius[^12]. Et hoc quidem ponunt non propter *necessitatem*, sed propter *rationem inducentem* et in *conversione* et in *fractione*. In conversione, quia, cum totum sit homogeneum, non est maior ratio, quare magis una pars in unam partem quam in totum convertatur; ex quo non requiritur determinata pars. Unde Innocentius[^13]: « Ego sane concesserim, quod totalis panis in totale corpus convertitur, ita tamen, quod nulla pars panis in aliquam partem corporis transit ». — In fractione similiter videmus, quod qua ratione *post* in qualibet parte totus, eadem ratione similiter et *ante*. Unde Innocentius: « Reor, salva fide Maiestatis, quod ubi est panis consecratus, totum in singulis partibus continetur[^14]; quod inde coniicio, quoniam in quotcumque partes species dividantur, in singulis est totus Christus ».

Et haec positio est probabilior, et huic magis consentio, quia facit ad *veritatem Sacramenti* et utilitatem fidei: ad *veritatem*[^15], quia Christus ibi continetur ut signatum in signo, et quia ratio signandi uniformiter est in partibus et in toto; ad veritatem Sacramenti spectat, quod uniformiter sit in partibus et in toto. — Ad *utilitatem fidei* facit, quia phantastica imaginatio multum impedit nos ab elevatione ad contemplandum credenda. Sed si corpus Christi ponatur ibi, ita quod pars in parte, et totum in toto; non est omnimoda abstractio ab imaginatione. Sed quando ita ponitur, quod totus sub qualibet parte, hoc nullatenus cadit sub imaginatione. Unde multum sublevatur homo ad puritatem intelligentiae.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur in contrarium, quod ibi est confusio; dicendum, quod non est: quia, etsi partes non distinguantur secundum positionem in *loco*, distinguuntur tamen secundum positionem in *toto*; et ideo non est ibi confusio, quia est ibi positio, quae est ordinatio partium in *toto*.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod infinities esset; dicendum, quod quamvis anima sit in qualibet parte corporis, tamen semel est, quia unum est corpus; similiter in una hostia, quamvis in omnibus partibus, est ibi tamen semel; nec hostia est divisibilis in partes infinitas, ita quod ratio totius, scilicet panis, vel proprietatis consequentis salvetur, quia in divisione continui est status naturalis, quantum ad partes secundum formam.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de superfluitate, patet responsio ex iam dictis. Quod enim corpus Christi sit in singulis partibus, hoc facit ad *Sacramenti veritatem* et facit ad *fidei utilitatem* in promovendo ipsum intellectum, et ideo non superfluit.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de intentione, dicendum, quod non oportet, quod specialiter et discrete feratur intentio ministri super omnes partes, sed quia omnes partes habent rationem totius, sufficit, quod super totum; et sic in qualibet parte quod in toto.

---

english:
<!-- page 224 -->

### Question V. *Whether the body of Christ is in every part of the host.*

Fifthly it is asked whether the body of Christ is in every part of the host. And that it is so, seems the case:

1. For so says Hilary, and it is found in *On Consecration*[^1]: "Where the part is, there is the whole": therefore, since in every part of the host there is something of Christ to be placed: therefore in every part the whole is to be placed.

2. Likewise, let us mark out one part equally great: it seems impossible that a foot should be there, just as that the whole body should be there: therefore, since it is of greater nobility to contain the whole than a part, and it is no greater impossibility, it seems that this is to be held.

3. Likewise, it is agreed that after the breaking the whole Christ is in the individual parts, into however many the division is made; but by the breaking nothing new is effected there: therefore before the breaking the whole was in every part[^2]. If you should say that this is by consequence, as in a mirror; this does not hold, because in a mirror a species is generated in the individual parts from the object; but here there is not anything more twice making the body of Christ come anew, because the words were spoken long before: therefore the whole is *always* there.

4. Likewise, the body of Christ under the Sacrament is exalted to a more excellent mode of being than a spirit — for a spirit is only in one place, but the body of Christ is present to many[^3] — therefore if a spirit is in the whole in such a way that it is in every part, much more so the body of Christ.

5. Likewise, in the conversion of the bread the whole is homogeneous, therefore every part has the character of the whole: therefore, since there is no greater reason why this part should be converted into this part rather than that one[^4], by the same reasoning that it is into one, so also into all: therefore if every part into the whole, it is clear, etc.

6. Likewise, this same thing is shown through the *impossible*. Let us mark out some part of the host[^5]: either the *whole* is there, or a *part*. If the *whole*, I have what was proposed; if a *part*, then let the host be divided; here either there is a *part* or a *whole*. If a *part*, then Christ is divided; if a *whole* and previously it was not: then this *part* of the host contains more than before: therefore of necessity something has been converted there into parts which was not there before; and further, the place has been changed, because that part has yielded to other parts which begin to be there anew.

7. Likewise, suppose the consecration were done over bread that was of greater quantity than the body of Christ; then either some *part* of the host would be *empty* of the containment of the body of Christ, or the *body* of Christ is there *greater* than it is by nature, or it is in *every part*. But the first is against the perfection of the Sacrament[^6]; the second against the perfection of the body of Christ: therefore the third is to be posited.

**On the contrary:** 1. If where the part is, there is the whole[^7]: therefore where one part is, there is every part: therefore the part is not distinct from the part: therefore the body of Christ is there confused.

2. Likewise, if the whole is in every part: therefore, since it is possible for the host to be divided to infinity, it seems that the body of Christ will be there infinitely many times.

3. Likewise, it accomplishes just as much if the whole is in the whole as if the whole is in every part: therefore to posit that it is in every part[^8] is to posit a superfluity.

4. Likewise, for this Sacrament there concur the word and the element and the intention[^9]; but the intention of the minister is that under the total species the whole Christ should be, nor is his intention borne upon the parts, because the parts are innumerable: therefore in them he is not whole.

### Conclusion.

> The body of Christ is in the whole in such a way that it is whole in every part in which the species of the whole is preserved.

**I respond:** It must be said that there is here a twofold position.

For the position of some is that under the total species there is the whole body, in such a way that under no part is the whole before the breaking, but after the breaking the whole is in every part: and this they say comes not from the *power of converting*, because this is not through the conversion, but through an *inseparable union*. For just as where the body is, there is the soul of Christ by reason of the conjunction;

<!-- page 225 -->

so, since this part of the host[^10] contains some part of the body and inseparably; again, since that part cannot be divided from the others — because the body is incorruptible — by reason of the conjunction; whoever separates a part from the host draws the whole with it. — And they offer the example in a mirror: because the image has spiritual *being*, which cannot be divided, and in the other part of the mirror there remains a part of the image, and likewise the whole. They say something similar also of the sensitive soul[^11], which is born to be in a ringed body by reason of a like character in the parts and the whole; whence, when a part is divided from the whole, the whole soul remains in it. So in its own way in the matter at hand. Whence, because nothing is to be posited in this Sacrament except what is necessary; and reason compels that after the breaking it is in the divided parts of the host, but it does not compel us to posit that before the breaking it is in all the parts: they are unwilling to posit more.

The opinion of others is that the body of Christ is in the whole in such a way that it is in every part in which the species of the whole is preserved[^12]. And this indeed they posit not on account of *necessity*, but on account of an *inducing reason* both in the *conversion* and in the *breaking*. In the conversion, because, since the whole is homogeneous, there is no greater reason why one part should be converted into one part rather than into the whole; from which no determinate part is required. Whence Innocent[^13]: "I would indeed grant that the total bread is converted into the total body, yet in such a way that no part of the bread passes into any part of the body." — In the breaking likewise we see that by whatever reason He is *afterward* whole in every part, by the same reason likewise also *before*. Whence Innocent: "I think, the faith of the Majesty being safe, that where there is consecrated bread, the whole is contained in the individual parts[^14]; which I conjecture from this, that into however many parts the species is divided, in the individual parts is the whole Christ."

And this position is the more probable, and to this I more consent, because it makes for the *truth of the Sacrament* and the usefulness of faith: for the *truth*[^15], because Christ is there contained as the thing signified in the sign, and because the character of signifying is uniformly in the parts and in the whole; it pertains to the truth of the Sacrament that it be uniformly in the parts and in the whole. — It makes for the *usefulness of faith*, because a fanciful imagination greatly impedes us from elevation to contemplating the things to be believed. But if the body of Christ be posited there, in such a way that part is in part, and whole in whole; there is not a complete abstraction from the imagination. But when it is posited in such a way that the whole is under every part, this in no way falls under the imagination. Whence man is greatly lifted up to purity of understanding.

1. To that, then, which is objected to the contrary, that there is confusion there; it must be said that there is not: because, although the parts are not distinguished according to position in *place*, they are nevertheless distinguished according to position in the *whole*; and therefore there is no confusion there, because there is there position, which is the ordering of parts in the *whole*.

2. To that which is objected, that it would be there infinitely many times; it must be said that, although the soul is in every part of the body, yet it is there once, because there is one body; similarly in one host, although in all the parts, it is there nevertheless once; nor is the host divisible into infinite parts in such a way that the character of the whole, namely of bread, or of the consequent property, is preserved, because in the division of a continuum there is a natural limit, with respect to the parts according to form.

3. To that which is objected concerning superfluity, the response is clear from what has already been said. For that the body of Christ is in the individual parts, this makes for the *truth of the Sacrament* and makes for the *usefulness of faith* in advancing the understanding itself, and therefore it is not superfluous.

4. To that which is objected concerning the intention, it must be said that it is not necessary that the intention of the minister be borne specifically and distinctly upon all the parts, but, because all the parts have the character of the whole, it suffices that it be upon the whole; and thus in every part is what is in the whole.

---

la: Can. *Ubi pars est corporis, est et totum* (78.), d. 2. Auctor huius canonis est Hilarius papa (461–467.). Edd. addunt *corporis* post *pars*, nec non et post *ibi*.

en: Canon *Where there is a part of the body, there is also the whole* (78.), dist. 2. The author of this canon is Pope Hilary (461–467). The editions add *of the body* after *part*, and likewise after *there*.

la: Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 8, ubi etiam impugnat exemplum de *speculo*. Exemplum ipsum ab Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 7. a. 3. § 5, et a S. Thom., hic a. 3. quaestiunc. 3, attribuitur Augustino, qui ipse, ut notat S. Thom., utitur « in quodam sermone de verbis Evangelii »; forsan in illo, de quo supra pag. 219, nota 1, et qui in operibus Augustini non invenitur. — Mox post *sicut* cod. X addit *species*. Inferius pro *bis* codd. M Q *vis*, Vat. *his*. In fine arg. post *tantum* (intellige: *semper*, i. e. ante fractionem, quantum post fractionem), pro quo edd. *totum*, cod. O addit *semel*.

en: Cf. Innocent III, IV *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar*, c. 8, where he also attacks the example of the *mirror*. The example itself is attributed by Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 10, memb. 7, a. 3, § 5, and by St. Thomas, here a. 3, little-question 3, to Augustine, who himself, as St. Thomas notes, uses it "in a certain sermon on the words of the Gospel"; perhaps in the one mentioned above on p. 219, note 1, and which is not found among Augustine's works. — Soon after *just as* cod. X adds *species*. Below, for *twice* codd. M Q read *force*, the Vatican ed. *these*. At the end of the argument, after *only* (understand: *always*, i.e. as much before the breaking as after the breaking), for which the editions read *whole*, cod. O adds *once*.

la: Vide supra q. 3. — Quod anima sit ita in toto corpore, quod in qualibet parte, ostensum est 1. Sent. d. 8. p. II. q. 3, et de Angelis II. Sent. d. 2. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above, q. 3. — That the soul is in the whole body in such a way that it is in every part, was shown in I Sent. d. 8, pt. II, q. 3, and concerning the angels in II Sent. d. 2, pt. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Ita plurimi codd.; edd. etiam recte *quam in illam*.

en: So most of the codices; the editions also correctly read *than into that one*.

la: Plurimi codd. *partem esse ibi*. — Inferius respicitur 1. Cor. 1, 13: *Divisus est Christus?*

en: Most of the codices read *that a part is there*. — Below there is reference to 1 Cor. 1:13: *Is Christ divided?*

la: Vide supra q. 1. et infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: See above, q. 1, and below, d. 11, pt. 1, q. 1 and following.

la: Respiciuntur verba Hilarii in 1. fundam. posita.

en: Reference is made to the words of Hilary set down in the first fundament.

la: Cod. L supplet *totum*.

en: Cod. L supplies *whole*.

la: Vide supra d. 6. p. II. a. 2. q. 1.

en: See above, d. 6, pt. II, a. 2, q. 1.

la: Vide supra q. 3.

en: See above, q. 3.

la: Cod. aa subiungit *quia imaginationem turbare posset, uno quaerendo, ubi pes, ubi manus* etc.

en: Cod. aa adds *because it could disturb the imagination, when one asks where the foot is, where the hand is*, etc.

la: Cfr. quaest. praeced. ad 2.

en: Cf. the preceding question, reply to objection 2.

la: Codd. L P Q supplent *sit*.

en: Codd. L P Q supply *is*.

la: Aliis verbis: quia licet continuum *mathematice* sive secundum meram quantitatem acceptum sit divisibile in infinitum (cfr. I. Sent. d. 43. q. 3. arg. 6. ad oppos.), tamen in quantum corpus *naturale* i. e. constans ex materia et forma, non est divisibile in infinitum, quia forma naturalis requirit determinatam quantitatem, qua destructa, et ipsa destruitur. Cfr. Aristot., I. Phys. text. 36. seqq. (c. 4.); VI. text. 91. (c. 10.), II. de Anima, text. 41. (c. 4.).

en: In other words: because, although a continuum taken *mathematically* or according to mere quantity is divisible to infinity (cf. I Sent. d. 43, q. 3, arg. 6, reply to objections), nevertheless insofar as it is a *natural* body, i.e. composed of matter and form, it is not divisible to infinity, because a natural form requires a determinate quantity, which being destroyed, the form itself too is destroyed. Cf. Aristotle, *Physics* I, text 36 ff. (c. 4); VI, text 91 (c. 10); *On the Soul* II, text 41 (c. 4).

la: Cod. aa subiungit *est*.

en: Cod. aa adds *is*. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p224-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p225-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, cross-checked against raw OCR lines 25351–25534 (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`). Vol IV two-column; PDF authoritative in the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/footer regions per the Vol II Override.

**Page-split map.** Title + arguments 1–7 and Sed contra 1–4 + Conclusio + start of Respondeo (first opinion through "propter coniunctionem;") on printed **p.224**. Second part of first opinion, second opinion, both Innocent quotations, "et haec positio probabilior", and the entire Solutio (Ad 1–4) on printed **p.225**. Page break placed at "Sicut enim ubi corpus, ibi anima Christi propter coniunctionem;" / "sic, cum haec pars hostiae…".

**Footer-ownership.** Quaracchi restarts numbering per page. p.224 footnotes 1–9 (1,2 = left column; 3–9 = right column) all anchor in q5 → rendered here as [^1]–[^9]. p.225 right-column footnotes 6–11 anchor in q5 (Respondeo/Solutio) → rendered here as [^10]–[^15]. p.225 left-column footnotes 1–5 anchor in the *Dubia circa litteram* (which begins at the foot of p.225-L, raw L25535) → they belong to the dubia chunk, NOT here. The prior chunk a1-q4 owns p.223 and earlier footers (q4 confirmed ending just before L25351).

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. No scholion is printed for q5; the article runs body → Respondeo → Solutio (Ad 1–4), immediately followed by DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM. The marginal labels "Conclusio", "Respondeo", "Opinio 1/2", "Ratio 1/2", "Solutio oppositorum", "Notandum" are Quaracchi running marginalia, not a scholion. (Note: footnote [^14], which the printed page keys to the Solutio's Ad 2, says "Vide scholion ad 3. quaestionem" — i.e. the relevant scholion lives in a1-q3, not here.)

**[?] flags.** None. All readings recovered cleanly from the PDF column bands.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


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

title_alt: Utrum aequalis vel maioris virtutis sit panem in corpus Christi convertere quam creare

source_text:
<!-- page 228 -->

### Articulus I. *De eucharistia respectu virtutis transsubstantiantis.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum aequalis, vel maioris virtutis sit panem in corpus Christi convertere, quam est aliquid de novo creare.*

Quantum ergo ad primum quaeritur, utrum aequalis virtutis, vel maioris sit panem in corpus Christi convertere, quam est aliquid de novo creare.

Et quod non sit aequalis virtutis, videtur:

1. Per verbum Ambrosii, quoniam Ambrosius arguit sic: « Si sermo Christi potuit facere quod non erat, non potest ea quae sunt in id mutare quod non erant »[^1]? quasi dicat: potest; sed ista ratio nihil valeret, nisi illud esset maioris potentiae: ergo potentia creandi est maioris potentiae quam transsubstantiandi.

2. Item, *ratione* videtur, quia ubi est maior distantia, ibi maior virtus reducens; sed inter ens et non-ens est maior distantia, quam inter ens et ens: ergo maior est virtus in creatione, in qua de non-ente fit ens[^2].

3. Item, maior est virtus, quae agit paucioribus mediis et auxiliis; sed virtus, quae producit ex nihilo, sibi sola sufficit, quae vero ex aliquo, aliam rationem[^3] praesupponit: ergo etc.

**Contra:**
1. « Maius est de impio facere pium quam creare caelum et terram »[^4]; sed transsubstantiatio panis in corpus Christi multo maior est quam impium iustificare: ergo illud maioris virtutis est quam creare.

2. Item, illud est impossibilius, quod mens bene disposita difficilius iudicat; sed omnis mens facilius credit, aliquid de novo fieri, quam aliquid in aliud transmutari sine illius augmento et aliqua mutatione[^5]: ergo illud difficilius.

3. Item, ubicumque est finita distantia inter extrema, aliquid manet commune; sed in transsubstantiatione nihil commune manet[^6]: ergo inter extrema est distantia infinita; et si hoc, transsubstantiatio talis est a virtute infinita, et sic non est maioris potentiae illud quam istud.

4. Item, maioris potentiae est facere, quod unum sit in pluribus locis, quam quod unum sit; sed haec virtus, quae facit, corpus Christi esse in altari, facit, ipsum in pluribus locis esse[^7]: ergo istud est maioris virtutis.

> **Conclusio.** Maius est quoad effectum creare quam transsubstantiare; sed quatenus corpus Christi superexcellit omnem creaturam, prout est cum anima et Divinitate, effectus transsubstantiationis excellit omnem rei alterius creationem.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod si loquamur de virtute creante et transsubstantiante, quae maior sit quantum ad se, non est differentia, quia una est, nec intensa nec remissa[^8]. — Si autem quantum ad effectum, quis sit indicativus maioris potentiae, sive magis declarativus potentiae divinae; dicendum, quod in qualibet harum operationum est considerare *tria consideranda*: principium initiale, distantiam mediam et terminum finalem. Quantum ad *principium initiale* maioris virtutis est attestativum *creare* quam *transsubstantiare*, quia ibi ex nihilo, hic operatur in aliquid[^9]. — Quantum vero ad *distantiam mediam*, est aequalis virtutis, quia utrobique nihil commune reperitur, nec manet secundum *genus subiectum*, licet secundum *genus praedicabile* in altero[^10].

<!-- page 229 -->

— Quantum vero ad *terminum finalem*, quia ibi in creatione fit, ut quod *non erat* sit, in transsubstantiatione fit, ut quod erat alicubi sine sui mutatione sit alibi, illud quidem est maius, sed hoc rarius[^11]; et illud maius *est*, sed istud maius *videtur*. Quantum ergo ad terminum finalem maius *est* creare, sed maius *videtur* transsubstantiare.

Rationes igitur primae verae sunt, quia maior effectus est creare et quantum ad terminum finalem et quantum ad principium initiale. In hoc tamen, quod corpus Christi superexcellit omnem creaturam, prout est cum anima et Divinitate; et transsubstantiatio facit, ut illud corpus sit in altari, non de alio: ideo excellit omnem *alterius* rei creationem, non tamen *sui* formationem, sicut videbitur[^12].

**Ad argumenta:**

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maius est de impio facere pium etc.; dicendum, quod illud dicitur maius, salvo libero arbitrio, quia hic ex parte liberi arbitrii est resistentia, ibi[^13] nulla; non sic in proposito.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de iudicio mentis dispositae, dicendum, quod faciliora iudicat usitatiora et quae magis apparent, quamvis maiora sint; unde non valet.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de distantia, dicendum, quod hoc concedendum est quantum ad hoc, quod nihil commune remanet, sed non quantum ad distantiam in ratione *generis praedicabilis*[^14].

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod maius est facere, quod in pluribus locis etc.; dicendum, quod cum aliquid non-ens fit, aut est in potentia, ut sit, aut nullo modo. Si aliquo modo est in potentia, ut sit; tunc bene concedendum est, quod maius est facere, quod in pluribus locis sit, quam quod sit, quia est in potentia ad esse, non ad plura loca simul. Sed quando nullo modo est in potentia, ut sit, et congruitatem habet ad hoc, ut in pluribus locis sit, primum est maius; et sic in proposito, quia illud quod creatur, nullam habet potentiam nec ordinationem ad hoc, ut sit. Sed corpus Christi iam conditum et perfectum idoneitatem habet ad hoc, ut sit in pluribus locis sub Sacramento.

english:
### Article I. *On the Eucharist with respect to the power of transubstantiating.*
### Question I. *Whether it is of equal or greater power to convert bread into the body of Christ than to create something anew.*

As regards the first point, then, it is asked whether it is of equal or greater power to convert bread into the body of Christ than to create something anew.

And that it is not of equal power, it seems:

1. By the word of Ambrose, for Ambrose argues thus: "If the word of Christ could make what was not, can it not change the things that are into what they were not?"[^1] — as if to say: it can; but this argument would have no force unless that were of greater power: therefore the power of creating is of greater power than that of transubstantiating.

2. Likewise, *by reason* it seems so, because where there is greater distance, there is a greater reducing power; but between being and non-being there is a greater distance than between being and being: therefore the power in creation is greater, in which from non-being being comes to be[^2].

3. Likewise, that power is greater which acts with fewer means and aids; but the power that produces from nothing suffices by itself alone, whereas the power that produces from something presupposes another ground[^3]: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:**
1. "It is greater to make a godly man out of an ungodly one than to create heaven and earth"[^4]; but the transubstantiation of bread into the body of Christ is much greater than to justify the ungodly: therefore that is of greater power than to create.

2. Likewise, that is more impossible which a well-disposed mind judges more difficult; but every mind more readily believes that something comes to be anew than that something is changed into another without any increase of it and without any [observable] change[^5]: therefore that is more difficult.

3. Likewise, wherever there is a finite distance between the extremes, something remains common; but in transubstantiation nothing common remains[^6]: therefore between the extremes the distance is infinite; and if so, such a transubstantiation is from an infinite power, and thus the one is not of greater power than the other.

4. Likewise, it is of greater power to make that one thing be in many places than that it be one; but this power, which makes the body of Christ be on the altar, makes it be in many places[^7]: therefore that is of greater power.

> **Conclusion.** It is greater, as regards the effect, to create than to transubstantiate; but inasmuch as the body of Christ surpasses every creature, as it is with soul and Divinity, the effect of transubstantiation surpasses the creation of any other thing.

**Respondeo:** It must be said that, if we speak of the creating and transubstantiating power, as to which is greater in itself, there is no difference, because it is one, neither intensified nor diminished[^8]. — But if [we speak] as regards the effect, [namely] which is indicative of greater power, or rather more declarative of the divine power; it must be said that in each of these operations there are *three things to consider*: the initial principle, the intermediate distance, and the final term. As regards the *initial principle*, it is attestative of greater power *to create* than *to transubstantiate*, because there [it acts] from nothing, here it acts upon something[^9]. — But as regards the *intermediate distance*, it is of equal power, because in both cases nothing common is found, nor does anything remain according to the *subject genus*, although [it does] according to the *predicable genus* in the one [case][^10].

— But as regards the *final term*, since there in creation it comes about that what *was not* is, [while] in transubstantiation it comes about that what was somewhere, without its own change, is elsewhere, the former is indeed greater, but the latter rarer[^11]; and the former *is* greater, but the latter *seems* greater. As regards the final term, therefore, to create *is* greater, but to transubstantiate *seems* greater.

The first reasons, then, are true, because the greater effect is to create, both as regards the final term and as regards the initial principle. In this, however, that the body of Christ surpasses every creature, as it is with soul and Divinity; and transubstantiation brings it about that that body be on the altar, not from another: therefore it surpasses the creation of *any other* thing, yet not *its own* formation, as will be seen[^12].

**To the arguments:**

1. To that which is objected, that it is greater to make a godly man out of an ungodly one, etc.; it must be said that it is called greater, with free will preserved, because here on the part of free will there is resistance, there[^13] none; not so in the case at hand.

2. To that which is objected concerning the judgment of a disposed mind, it must be said that it judges the more customary and the more apparent things to be easier, although they are greater; hence it is not valid.

3. To that which is objected concerning distance, it must be said that this is to be granted as regards this, that nothing common remains, but not as regards a distance in respect of the *predicable genus*[^14].

4. To that which is objected, that it is greater to make that [something] be in many places, etc.; it must be said that when a non-being comes to be, either it is in potency, that it may be, or in no way. If it is in some way in potency, that it may be; then it is indeed to be granted that it is greater to make it be in many places than that it be, because it is in potency to being, not to many places at once. But when it is in no way in potency, that it may be, and has a fittingness for this, that it be in many places, the first is greater; and so in the case at hand, because that which is created has no potency nor ordination to this, that it may be. But the body of Christ, already constituted and perfected, has a suitability for this, that it be in many places under the Sacrament.

la: De Mysteriis, c. 9. n. 52. Cfr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 15. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Superius pro *quantae est* cod. h *quam est*.

en: *On the Mysteries*, c. 9, n. 52. Cf. IV *On the Sacraments* c. 4, n. 15. See here the text of the Master, c. 2. — Above, for *quantae est* codex h [reads] *quam est*.

la: Cfr. tom. I. pag. 767, nota 2.

en: Cf. vol. I, p. 767, note 2.

la: Codd. II A Y *causam*, scil. materiam, Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6: *aliquam* [quod habent etiam codd. II aa] *rem praesupponit; unde indiget aliquo: ergo* etc.

en: Codices II A Y [read] *causam*, that is, matter; Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6: *some thing it presupposes; whence it needs something: therefore* etc.

la: Secundum August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 72. n. 3.

en: According to Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 72, n. 3.

la: B. Albert., hic a. 8, hoc probat ex eo, quod philosophi creationem deprehenderunt, non autem transsubstantiationem. Cfr. S. Thom., hic d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3. arg. 1. ad oppos.

en: Bl. Albert, here a. 8, proves this from the fact that the philosophers grasped creation, but not transubstantiation. Cf. St. Thomas, here d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 3. arg. 1 to the contrary.

la: Ut ostenditur infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. — Finem arg. cod. L exhibet sic: *potentiae hoc* [scil. transsubstantiatio] *quam illud* [creatio] *etc.*, permulti codd. *potentiae quam illud.* Cod. Z addit *et sic etc.*, cod. bb *ergo etc.*

en: As is shown below d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. — The end of the argument codex L gives thus: *of power this* [i.e. transubstantiation] *than that* [creation] *etc.*; very many codices [read] *of power than that.* Codex Z adds *and so etc.*, codex bb *therefore etc.*

la: Cfr. supra p. I. q. 1. seqq. — Superius post *quam quod unum sit* cod. X addit *in uno.*

en: Cf. above p. I. q. 1 ff. — Above, after *than that the one be* codex X adds *in one.*

la: *Quia est divina.* — Post *una est* in cod. II additur *numero.*

en: *Because it is divine.* — After *it is one* in codex II is added *in number.*

la: Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro Altaris mysterio, c. 7: Certe maius est creare illud quod non est, quam mutare quod est; ac longe maius, quod non est de nihilo procreare, quam quod est in aliud transmutare. — Edd. subiungunt *et ex aliquo.*

en: Innocent III, IV *On the sacred mystery of the Altar*, c. 7: Certainly it is greater to create that which is not, than to change what is; and far greater, to bring forth from nothing what is not, than to change into another what is. — The editions append *and from something.*

la: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 2. § 6. hoc declarat his verbis: In hac transmutatione non remanet aliquid commune, quod est sustentans [i. e. materia] ipsam transmutationem... Si dicatur, quod ibi est corpus commune. Hoc verum est eo modo, quo *logicus* sumit commune, non eo modo, quo actio creaturae requirit commune. Cfr. infra d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. ad 4. et q. 6. et Aristot., XI. Metaph. c. 8. (X. c. 9.) — Pro *secundum genus subiectum* cod. aa *secundum generis substantiam.*

en: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 1. a. 2. § 6, declares this in these words: In this change there does not remain something common, which is the sustaining thing [i.e. matter] of the change itself... If it be said that there a common body is there. This is true in the way in which *the logician* takes "common," not in the way in which the action of a creature requires something common. Cf. below d. 11. p. 1. q. 2. ad 4 and q. 6, and Aristotle, *Metaphysics* XI. c. 8. (X. c. 9.) — For *according to the subject genus* codex aa [reads] *according to the substance of the genus.*

la: August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 24. n. 1: Illud [saturatio quinque millium hominum de quinque panibus] mirantur homines, non quia *maius* est, sed quia *rarum* est. — Mox post *maius est* cod. aa addit *secundum veritatem*, et post *videtur* subiungit *quia rarius quotidie est creatio in rebus, sed non ita consecratio.*

en: Augustine, *Tractates on the Gospel of John* tr. 24, n. 1: That [the feeding of five thousand men from five loaves] men marvel at, not because it is *greater*, but because it is *rare*. — Soon after *is greater* codex aa adds *according to truth*, and after *seems* subjoins *because daily creation is rarer in things, yet not so consecration.*

la: In seq. quaest. — Superius edd. omittunt *non de alio.*

en: In the following question. — Above, the editions omit *not from another.*

la: Scil. in creatione caeli et terrae. — Cod. B *ibi nullius.* Cod. K subinde omittit *non*, referendo ultima verba solutionis ad *ibi nulla.*

en: That is, in the creation of heaven and earth. — Codex B [reads] *there of none.* Codex K thereupon omits *not*, referring the last words of the solution to *there none.*

la: Ita cod. F a secunda manu et edd.; codd. *minora.* Sensus est: licet transsubstantiatio et creatio in eo conveniant, quod nihil *commune* in terminis *a quo* et *ad quem* inveniatur, tamen in transsubstantiatione habetur quodammodo terminus *a quo* et *in quem* (panis convertitur in corpus Christi), ratione cuius dici (praedicari) potest *corpus* converti *in corpus*; hoc autem non est in creatione. — Pro *praedicabilis* plurimi codd. *principalis.*

en: Thus codex F by a second hand and the editions; the codices [read] *lesser things.* The sense is: although transubstantiation and creation agree in this, that nothing *common* is found in the terms *from which* and *to which*, nevertheless in transubstantiation there is in a certain way a term *from which* and *into which* (bread is converted into the body of Christ), by reason of which it can be said (predicated) that *a body* is converted *into a body*; but this is not so in creation. — For *predicable* very many codices [read] *principal.*

latin_scholion:
**I.** De 1. et 2. quaestione alii Lombardi commentatores breviter et concorditer agunt (in seq. dist.) unica quaestione; sed diffusius Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. Cfr. S. Thom., d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; S. III. q. 75. a. 8. ad 3. — B. Albert., d. 11. a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., d. 11. q. 1. a. 5. — Richard. a Med., d. 11. a. 1. q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., d. 11. q. 2. circa med.

**II.** In 3. quaestione redeunt eaedem controversiae et eadem principia, de quibus actum est supra d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 3. 4. (cfr. ibi scholion) et d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. Cfr. etiam infra d. 13. a. 1. q. 3. De eadem quaestione hic non agunt explicite nisi Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 6, et B. Albert., hic a. 7. 8.

**III.** Circa solutionem 4. quaestionis opinio media, quam cum S. Bonav. ut probabiliorem tenuerunt Alex. Hal. et Petr. a Tar., nunc est obsoleta. Communiter enim recepta est sententia S. Thomae, quod quaecumque maxima materia, dummodo sit consecranti moraliter praesens, possit consecrari valide, quamvis non licite. Nam « quantitas materiae huius Sacramenti determinatur per comparationem ad usum fidelium: sed non ad usum fidelium, qui nunc occurrunt... (sed) absolute. Numerus autem fidelium est indeterminatus; unde non potest dici, quod quantitas materiae huius Sacramenti sit determinata » (S. Thom., S. III. q. 74. a. 2; cfr. IV. Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3.). De eadem quaestione praeter S. Thomam: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. § 6, *Consequenter quaeritur.* — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 4. a. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 7. q. 1. — Durand., IV. Sent. d. 11. q. 6. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

---

english_scholion:
**I.** Concerning the 1st and 2nd questions, the other commentators on the Lombard treat briefly and concordantly (in the following distinction) in a single question; but more fully Alexander of Hales, *Summa* p. IV. q. 10. m. 4. a. 2. § 6. Cf. St. Thomas, d. 11. q. 1. a. 3. subquestion 3; *Summa* III. q. 75. a. 8. ad 3. — Bl. Albert, d. 11. a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, d. 11. q. 1. a. 5. — Richard of Mediavilla, d. 11. a. 1. q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, d. 11. q. 2. about the middle.

**II.** In the 3rd question the same controversies and the same principles recur, which were treated above at d. 1. p. 1. a. 1. q. 3. 4. (cf. the scholion there) and d. 5. a. 3. q. 1. Cf. also below d. 13. a. 1. q. 3. Concerning this question none treat it explicitly here except Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 6, and Bl. Albert, here a. 7. 8.

**III.** Concerning the solution of the 4th question, the middle opinion, which along with St. Bonaventure Alexander of Hales and Peter of Tarentaise held as more probable, is now obsolete. For commonly the opinion of St. Thomas is received, that whatever maximum quantity of matter, provided it be morally present to the one consecrating, can be consecrated validly, though not licitly. For "the quantity of the matter of this Sacrament is determined by comparison to the use of the faithful: but not to the use of the faithful who are now present... (but) absolutely. Now the number of the faithful is indeterminate; whence it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this Sacrament is determined" (St. Thomas, *Summa* III. q. 74. a. 2; cf. IV Sent. d. 11. q. 2. a. 1. subquestion 3.). Concerning this question, besides St. Thomas: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. § 6, *Consequenter quaeritur.* — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 4. a. 2. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 7. q. 1. — Durandus, IV Sent. d. 11. q. 6. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from Vol IV PDF column bands (printed pp. 228–229; `colcrop.py vol4` split_x=1880) per the Vol II/IV PDF-priority override, with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 25770–25995) as base for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. The Respondeo, Solutio, and all footers were cascade-shattered in OCR and taken from the PDF bands. English is a fresh literal translation.

**Alignment.** The chunk's opener title (`Utrum aequalis, vel maioris virtutis sit panem in corpus Christi convertere…`) is the ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I question, confirmed against the PDF (p.228: ARTICULUS I, *De eucharistia respectu virtutis transsubstantiantis*, QUAESTIO I). Aligned. ARTICULUS I opener folds into q1 (no standalone divisio chunk).

**Running head.** p.228 verso top = "228 SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (no DIST line). p.229 recto top = **"DIST. X. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. II."** — sanity check passes (DIST. X. P. II., not DIST. IX). The running head reads "QUAEST. II" because q2 begins on the spread; the q1 material here is the article's first question.

**Page span.** q1 spans printed pp. **228–229 only**, NOT 230. The prior frontmatter listed [228,229,230]; corrected to [228,229]. q1's tail (Solutio + scholion) closes at the bottom of p.229; QUAESTIO II begins lower on p.229 right column and is owned by a1-q2.

**Apparatus / footer-ownership.** 14 footnotes claimed. Page 228 (per-page restart) notes 1–10 are all anchored in q1's body (videtur args, contra, conclusio, respondeo) → mapped to [^1]–[^10]. Page 229 (per-page restart) notes 3, 4, 5, 6 are anchored in q1's Solutio tail (n3→*ibi nulla*, n4→*maiora*, n5→*generis praedicabilis*, n6→*sub Sacramento*) → mapped to [^13], [^11], [^14], [^12] respectively (renumbered by body order). Page 229 notes 1, 2 (anchored in QUAESTIO II body) and note 7 (*Cfr. supra p. I. q. 1. seqq.*, anchored at q2's *quantitate*) belong to **a1-q2** — left to that neighbor. The divisio chunk owns all footers before L25770.

**Scholion disposition.** ART I carries a question-keyed scholion printed under q1 on p.229 (sections I–III). Section I expressly addresses "the 1st and 2nd questions"; II addresses the 3rd; III the 4th. Rendered in full here since it is printed on q1's page and section I leads with q1; `has_scholion: true`.

**`[?]` flags.** None — all readings resolved against the PDF bands.


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

source_text:
### Quaestio II. *Utrum virtus transsubstantiandi sit nobilior virtute concipiendi Christum.*

<!-- page 229 -->

Secundo quaeritur de virtute transsubstantiandi per comparationem ad virtutem concipiendi. Et quod virtus transsubstantiandi sit nobilior, ostenditur sic.

1. Nobilitas et magnitudo virtutis per actum dignoscitur, et actus per terminum; sed virtus conceptionis in Virgine terminata est ad corpus Christi passibile et mortale, transsubstantiatio autem ad corpus impassibile et immortale, et hoc, prout est in perfecta aetate et substantia et quantitate[^1]: ergo etc.

2. Item, quanto illud, ex quo incipit actio, minorem habet dispositionem ad terminum actionis,

<!-- page 230 -->

tanto virtus reducens est excellentior et virtuosior; sed panis minorem habet dispositionem ad carnem Christi quam caro beatae Virginis: cum igitur virtute transsubstantiationis panis transeat in carnem et virtute conceptionis caro beatae Virginis facta sit caro Christi; videtur, quod virtus transsubstantians sit dignior et excellentior.

3. Item, quanto virtus magis se diffundit et communicat, tanto potentior et melior, quia « bonum est communicativum sui[^2] »: sed virtus transsubstantiandi est communis toti mundo et Christi carnem facit esse, ubicumque fideles sunt; virtus autem concipiendi solum fuit in Virgine et Christum solum in uno loco fecit esse: ergo haec virtus, scilicet transsubstantiandi, est nobilior et excellentior.

**Contra:** 1. Illa virtus est dignior, quae subiectum suum facit dignius et excellentius; sed virtus concipiendi data Virgini Mariae fecit eam multo digniorem, quam virtus sive potestas consecrandi data sacerdoti vel verbo[^3]: ergo virtus concipiendi est excellentior.

2. Item, opus illud est maius et excellentius, de quo tenetur quis secundum rectam rationem plus laudare Deum et ei regratiari; sed magis tenemur laudare Deum de conceptione gloriosae Virginis, quam de consecratione, quam facit sacerdos in altari: ergo etc.

3. Item, illa virtus est potentior et maior, quae potest in plus; sed beata Virgo unica conceptione concepit illud idem et tantum, quantum omnes sacerdotes omnibus consecrationibus conficiunt a principio mundi usque ad finem; et praeterea, novum aliquid, quod non erat, nobis concepit; sed sacerdos non conficit nisi quod erat: ergo virtus conceptionis ad maiorem effectum sive terminum se extendit: ergo nobilior.

### Conclusio.

> Virtus concipiendi Christi nobilior est virtute transsubstantiandi tum quoad manifestationem divinae potentiae, qua laudatur divina Maiestas, tum quatenus consideratur communicata beatae Virgini.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod dupliciter est loqui de utraque harum virtutum: aut prout sunt in suo fonte et *primo principio*, ut dicatur *virtus concipiendi*, quae operata est conceptionem et principaliter et propria auctoritate, et similiter *virtus transsubstantiandi*; et sic non est comparatio secundum maius et minus *in se*[^4]; sed si comparentur ad *manifestationem factam per effectus*, iudicandum est, quod se habent sicut excedentia et excessa. Licet enim utrumque sit nobilissimum et ostendat, Dei potentiam esse summam; in illo tamen magis laudatur Maiestas divina, et in hoc captivatur magis ratio nostra[^5].

Alio modo possumus loqui de hac duplici virtute, prout dicitur *communicari creaturae*, secundum quod dicitur, quod Virgini data est potestas concipiendi et sacerdoti per verbum potestas conficiendi; et sic loquendo *simpliciter* virtus concipiendi est dignior et excellentior, quia *subiectum*[^6] magis nobilitat — maius enim est *esse matrem Dei* quam *esse sacerdotem* — quia etiam *actio* singularior et praeclarior — maius enim est *concipere* quam *conficere* — quia *terminus* actionis plus accipit a concipiente Matre quam a conficiente sacerdote. Accepit enim a Matre humanitatem et *esse*, non tantum *esse hic* vel *esse ibi*; in consecratione vero, sicut melius patebit[^7], corpus Christi non incipit esse.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur de nobilitate corporis Christi, iam patet responsio. Nam corpus Christi in consecratione non *fit*; quod si fieret, tunc utique bene concederem rationem, sed certe tunc non fit eius *humanitas*, quia facta est in conceptione; non fit *gloria corporis*, quia facta est in resurrectione; non fit *perfecta aetas*, quia triginta annorum spatio est perfecta. Unde argumentum deficit, quia arguit, ac si faceret[^8]. Sed per consecrationem nihil novum fit, sed hoc solum fit, ut quod erat in caelo perfectum et gloriosum virtute transsubstantiandi idem sine mutatione sit in altari.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod minor est dispositio; dicendum, quod ex utraque parte erat potentia *obedientiae*. Verumtamen esto, quod minor sit dispositio, tamen virtus data verbo vel sacerdoti non efficit vel reducit ad actum, sicut virtus conceptionis data Virgini[^9]; et hoc melius patebit in tertio problemate.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de communicatione, quod nobilior est virtus, quae se magis communicat; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, ceteris aliis paribus; sed non sic in proposito. Nam beatissima Virgo Maria tantam habuit divinitus sibi collatam virtutem, quod recte *Mater Domini* dicitur et est verissime[^10]; sacerdos autem — nec verbum — nec pater nec mater Christi potest dici, quamvis ad eius ministerium convertatur panis in beatissimum corpus Christi[^11].

english:
### Question II. *Whether the power of transubstantiating is nobler than the power of conceiving Christ.*

<!-- page 229 -->

Secondly it is asked about the power of transubstantiating by comparison to the power of conceiving. And that the power of transubstantiating is nobler is shown thus.

1. The nobility and magnitude of a power is known through its act, and the act through its term; but the power of conceiving in the Virgin was terminated at the body of Christ as passible and mortal, whereas transubstantiation is terminated at a body impassible and immortal, and this insofar as it is in perfect age and substance and quantity[^1]: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the less the disposition toward the term of the action possessed by that from which the action begins,

<!-- page 230 -->

the more excellent and more powerful is the reducing power; but bread has a lesser disposition toward the flesh of Christ than the flesh of the Blessed Virgin: since therefore by the power of transubstantiation bread passes into flesh, and by the power of conception the flesh of the Blessed Virgin was made the flesh of Christ; it seems that the transubstantiating power is more worthy and more excellent.

3. Likewise, the more a power diffuses and communicates itself, the more potent and the better it is, because "the good is self-communicative[^2]": but the power of transubstantiating is common to the whole world and makes the flesh of Christ to be wherever the faithful are; whereas the power of conceiving was only in the Virgin and made Christ to be in one place only: therefore this power, namely of transubstantiating, is nobler and more excellent.

**On the contrary:** 1. That power is more worthy which makes its subject more worthy and more excellent; but the power of conceiving given to the Virgin Mary made her much more worthy than the power or potestas of consecrating given to a priest or to the word[^3]: therefore the power of conceiving is more excellent.

2. Likewise, that work is greater and more excellent for which, according to right reason, one is held to praise God and give thanks to Him more; but we are more held to praise God for the conception of the glorious Virgin than for the consecration which the priest performs at the altar: therefore etc.

3. Likewise, that power is more potent and greater which can do more; but the Blessed Virgin by a single conception conceived that same thing and as much as all priests by all consecrations confect from the beginning of the world to the end; and moreover, she conceived for us something new which was not before; but the priest confects only what already was: therefore the power of conception extends to a greater effect or term: therefore it is nobler.

### Conclusion.

> The power of conceiving Christ is nobler than the power of transubstantiating, both as regards the manifestation of the divine power, by which the divine Majesty is praised, and inasmuch as it is considered as communicated to the Blessed Virgin.

**I respond:** It must be said that there are two ways of speaking of each of these powers: either insofar as they are in their source and *first principle*, so that there is spoken of the *power of conceiving*, which effected the conception both principally and by its own authority, and likewise the *power of transubstantiating*; and in this way there is no comparison according to greater and lesser *in itself*[^4]; but if they are compared as to the *manifestation made through effects*, it must be judged that they stand as exceeding and exceeded. For although each is most noble and shows that God's power is supreme; yet in the one the divine Majesty is more praised, and in the other our reason is more taken captive[^5].

In another way we can speak of this twofold power, insofar as it is said to be *communicated to a creature*, according to which it is said that to the Virgin was given the power of conceiving and to the priest, through the word, the power of confecting; and speaking in this way, *absolutely* the power of conceiving is more worthy and more excellent, because it ennobles its *subject*[^6] more — for it is greater to *be the Mother of God* than to *be a priest* — because also its *action* is more singular and more illustrious — for it is greater to *conceive* than to *confect* — because the *term* of the action receives more from the conceiving Mother than from the confecting priest. For it received from the Mother humanity and *being*, not only *being here* or *being there*; whereas in consecration, as will better appear[^7], the body of Christ does not begin to be.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected concerning the nobility of the body of Christ, the response is already plain. For the body of Christ in consecration is not *made*; and if it were made, then indeed I would readily grant the argument, but certainly even then its *humanity* would not be made, since that was made in the conception; nor would the *glory of the body* be made, since that was made in the resurrection; nor would *perfect age* be made, since it is made perfect by the span of thirty years. Hence the argument fails, because it argues as if it made [it][^8]. But through consecration nothing new is made; rather, this alone is made, that what was in heaven perfect and glorious by the power of transubstantiating should, the same, without change, be on the altar.

2. To that which is objected, that the disposition is lesser; it must be said that on either side there was a *potency of obedience*. Nevertheless, granting that the disposition is lesser, still the power given to the word or to the priest does not effect or reduce to act, as does the power of conceiving given to the Virgin[^9]; and this will better appear in the third problem.

3. To that which is objected concerning communication, that the power which communicates itself more is nobler; it must be said that this is true, all other things being equal; but it is not so in the matter at hand. For the most blessed Virgin Mary had so great a power divinely conferred upon her that she is rightly called, and most truly is, the *Mother of the Lord*[^10]; but the priest — nor the word — can be called neither father nor mother of Christ, although for his ministry the bread is converted into the most blessed body of Christ[^11].

la: Cfr. supra p. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: Cf. above, part 1, q. 1 and following.

la: Secundum Dionys.; cfr. supra pag. 188, nota 1.

en: According to Dionysius; cf. above, p. 188, note 1.

la: Vide quaest. seq.

en: See the following question.

la: Quia scilicet utraque est ipsa virtus Dei infinita.

en: Namely, because each is the very infinite power of God.

la: Respicitur II. Cor. 10, 5: *In captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi.* Edd. *captivat.*

en: Reference is to 2 Cor. 10:5: *Bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ.* The editions read *captivat* (captivates).

la: Cod. Z (Ea secunda manu) addit *suum*, plures alii *secundum*. Inferius post *actio* edd. subiungunt *Virginis est gloriosior*, et subinde pro *accipit* substituunt *accepit*.

en: Codex Z (Ea, by a second hand) adds *suum* (its own), several others *secundum*. Below, after *actio* the editions add *Virginis est gloriosior* (is more glorious in the Virgin), and thereupon for *accipit* (receives) substitute *accepit* (received).

la: In solut. ad 1. et d. 11. p. 1. q. 1. seqq.

en: In the solution to the first [objection], and in d. 11, part 1, q. 1 and following.

la: Supple: *consecratio praedicta*. — Edd. planius *fieret*. Inferius post *sine* [codd. R S T omittunt *sine*] *mutatione* cod. O addit *sui*.

en: Supply: *the aforesaid consecration*. — The editions read more plainly *fieret* (it would be made). Below, after *sine* [codices R S T omit *sine*] *mutatione*, codex O adds *sui*.

la: Cfr. III. Sent. d. 4. a. 3. q. 1. seq. — De *potentia obedientiae* cfr. II. Sent. d. 18. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Cf. III Sent., d. 4, a. 3, q. 1 and following. — On the *potency of obedience* cf. II Sent., d. 18, a. 1, q. 2.

la: Ut ostensum est III. Sent. d. 4. a. 3. q. 3.

en: As was shown in III Sent., d. 4, a. 3, q. 3.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

en: See the scholion to the preceding question.

latin_scholion:
**De 2. quaestione.** Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaestionem; ibi enim de utraque hac virtute, transsubstantiandi scilicet et concipiendi, simul agitur.

---

english_scholion:
**On the 2nd question.** See the scholion to the preceding question; for there both of these powers, namely of transubstantiating and of conceiving, are treated together.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the 450 dpi PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{229,230}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` (Vol IV PDF-priority inversion for the cascade-shattered two-column body and footers), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 25996–26158) as positional cross-check. Running head on p. 230 confirmed **"DIST. X. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. III."** with folio 231 opening QUAESTIO III; p. 230 left folio reads "230 / SENTENTIARUM LIB. IV." (running head sanity check passes — DIST X P II, not DIST IX). Title and "Secundo quaeritur…" opener confirm ART I, q2 alignment.

**Page-split map.** Q2 opens at the foot of printed p. 229 (title, "Secundo quaeritur," arg. 1, and the start of arg. 2) and runs through all of p. 230 (rest of arg. 2, args. 3, Contra 1–3, Conclusio, Respondeo, Solutio 1–3). It ends entirely on p. 230 ("…convertatur panis in beatissimum corpus Christi[^11]."); p. 231 begins QUAESTIO III. Page break placed inside arg. 2 ("…minorem habet dispositionem ad terminum actionis," | "tanto virtus reducens…").

**Footer ownership.** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page. On p. 229 the q2 text carries only marker ⁷ ("…et quantitate⁷"); p.229 footer notes 1–6 are anchored in q1 (a1-q1 owns them). p. 229 note 7 → this chunk's [^1]. All of p. 230's footer notes (L 1–5, R 6–10) are anchored in this q2 body → this chunk's [^2]–[^11]. No q2 footers spill to a1-q3 (p. 231+), which owns L26159 onward.

**Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: true`. The ART I scholion block keyed to q2 is the brief cross-reference `De 2. quaestione` (raw L26172 footer "Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest." confirms the scholion proper sits with the preceding question); rendered as a pointer per the prompt's "render ONLY the q2-keyed section."

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