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

source_text:
<!-- page 195 -->

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

Consequenter quantum ad secundum articulum quaeritur de Sacramento eucharistiae quantum ad significationem, et circa hoc quaeruntur duo. Primo quaeritur, quid sit ibi res, et quid Sacramentum. Secundo quaeritur de unitate huius Sacramenti.

### Quaestio 1. *Quid in eucharistia sit res, et quid Sacramentum.*

Circa primum proceditur sic. Magister dicit, quod «aliquid est ibi Sacramentum tantum, ut species visibilis, et aliquid res tantum, ut corpus Christi mysticum, et aliquid res et Sacramentum, ut corpus Christi verum», quod est res primi et Sacramentum tertii. Et videtur primo, quod *species visibilis* non sit Sacramentum corporis:

1. Quia Sacramentum naturalem debet habere similitudinem ad rem; sed species non habet similitudinem, quia tam corpus Christi verum quam mysticum est totum *heterogeneum*, sed species *homogeneum*: ergo etc. — Si dicas, quod species componitur ex pluribus granis; hoc nihil est, quia illa non sunt heterogenea, sed uniformia. Praeterea, species est accidens, ergo non componitur.

2. Item, Sacramentum novae legis efficit; sed species nullam habent omnino operationem respectu contenti: ergo non sunt Sacramentum.

Item, quod *corpus Christi verum* non sit Sacramentum corporis mystici, videtur:

3. Quia Sacramentum est signum, signum autem est, quod se offert sensibus; sed corpus Christi, ut est sub illis speciebus, non offert se sensibus: ergo etc.

4. Item, si est Sacramentum, ergo signum «ex institutione significans»; sed corpus Christi verum non est institutum ad significandum mysticum, nec debet institui, quia nobilius est, sicut caput toto corpore: ergo non est Sacramentum.

Item, obiicitur de *mystico*, quod non sit *res*:

5. Quia res cuiuslibet Sacramenti est aliqua gratia, quia dicitur «Sacramentum invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma»: ergo cum corpus mysticum non sit gratia, non est res huius Sacramenti.

6. Item, res cuiuslibet Sacramenti novae legis est effectus eius; sed corpus Christi mysticum non est effectus huius Sacramenti, quia effectus non praecedit causam; sed corpus mysticum praecedit Sacramentum: ergo etc.

<!-- page 196 -->

> **Conclusio.** In Sacramento eucharistiae species visibilis est signum corporis Christi veri et mystici; corpus verum est res speciei et signum et causa corporis mystici; hoc autem est res corporis veri et veritas signi sensibilis.

**Respondeo:** Sicut dicit Magister[^1], tria sunt in hoc Sacramento: species visibilis, corpus Christi verum et corpus mysticum. Et secundum quod dicit Hugo[^2], «primum est signum secundi et tertii; secundum est res primi et signum et causa tertii; et tertium est res secundi et veritas primi». Unde reperitur hic ratio efficiendi et significandi, unde est verum Sacramentum novae legis.

*Ad 1.* Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod debet habere similitudinem; dicendum, quod species comparationem habet ad *materiam componentem*, sive ex qua constat, quia est ex granis; et comparationem ad *effectum* consequentem, sive quem dat, qui est cibare. Si ad materiam, sic est ex granis purissimis ad invicem unitis: et sic habet similitudinem cum corpore mystico, quod constat ex fidelibus puris, fide et caritate copulatis[^3]. Et si obiicias, quod est diversarum operationum: non valet, quia uniuntur ut consimiles in unitate fidei et caritatis. — Si autem comparetur ad *effectum*, qui est cibare, tunc habet similitudinem ad corpus Christi verum, quod est vere cibus.

Potest tamen dici, quod ad utrumque comparetur ratione eorum, ex quibus conficitur, quia corpus Christi verum est «ex purissimis sanguinibus[^4]», et corpus Christi mysticum ex puris fidelibus. Quod autem hic membrorum significetur varietas, hoc est per accidens, scilicet ratione corporis Christi, quod traxit de Virgine, quod est corpus organicum. — Et si obiicias, quod species non componitur nec reficit; dicendum, quod retinent idiomata substantiae, quae prius ibi fuit[^5], et ratione illius sunt signa convenientia.

*Ad 2.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de causalitate, dicendum, quod illud quod est Sacramentum tantum, si comparetur ad *medium*, per se non habet rationem efficiendi aliquam vel causandi, nisi adiuncto verbo, ut patet in aqua respectu characteris: sic in speciebus respectu corporis. Similiter, si comparetur ad *tertium*, habet rationem efficiendi *mediante secundo*, ut ablutio exterior cum charactere[^6]; similiter hic species exteriores ratione corporis Christi veri interius contenti, quod unit et incorporat.

*Ad 3. 4.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore vero, dicendum, quod ex se habet naturalem aptitudinem ad repraesentandum. Quod autem repraesentet, hoc non convenit ei *secundum se*, sed prout *subest speciebus* visibilibus institutis; et quantum ad hoc est signum visibile et voluntarie institutum in altero, non in se ipso; nec ad *significandum* est institutum in se, sed ad *efficiendum* in se tanquam nobilius, ad *significandum* vero, ut est contentum in altero; et hoc nihil derogat sibi[^7].

*Ad 5. 6.* Ad illud quod obiicitur de corpore mystico, quod non est res; dicendum, quod res huius Sacramenti non dicitur corpus mysticum ratione partium, sed ratione unionis; et illa unio est gratia et effectus Sacramenti. — Si obiicias, quod effectus sequitur causam; dicendum, quod unio in corpore mystico potest esse dupliciter: vel ab unitate virtutum compingentium[^8], vel a gratia sacramentali, secundum quam sumentes magis Christo incorporantur, et sic per consequens magis ad invicem uniuntur. Prima praecedit et non est res; secunda sequitur et est effectus et res huius Sacramenti. Et sic patet illud.

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

Consequently, as to the second article, inquiry is made concerning the Sacrament of the eucharist with respect to its signification, and on this point two questions are asked. First it is asked what is there the reality, and what the Sacrament. Secondly inquiry is made concerning the unity of this Sacrament.

### Question 1. *What in the eucharist is the reality, and what the Sacrament.*

It is approached thus concerning the first point. The Master says that «something is there Sacrament only, namely the visible species; and something is reality only, namely the mystical body of Christ; and something is reality-and-Sacrament, namely the true body of Christ», which is the reality of the first and the Sacrament of the third. And it seems first that the *visible species* is not the Sacrament of the body:

1. Because a Sacrament ought to have a natural likeness to the reality; but the species has no likeness, since both the true body of Christ and the mystical are wholly *heterogeneous*, whereas the species is *homogeneous*: therefore etc. — If you say that the species is composed of many grains, this is nothing, because those grains are not heterogeneous but uniform. Moreover, the species is an accident, therefore it is not composed.

2. Likewise, a Sacrament of the new law produces an effect; but the species has no operation whatsoever with respect to what is contained: therefore they are not a Sacrament.

Likewise, that the *true body of Christ* is not the Sacrament of the mystical body, it seems:

3. Because a Sacrament is a sign, and a sign is what offers itself to the senses; but the body of Christ, as it is under those species, does not offer itself to the senses: therefore etc.

4. Likewise, if it is a Sacrament, then it is a sign «signifying by institution»; but the true body of Christ is not instituted to signify the mystical, nor ought it to be instituted to do so, because it is more noble, as the head is to the whole body: therefore it is not a Sacrament.

Likewise, it is objected concerning the *mystical body*, that it is not the *reality*:

5. Because the reality of any Sacrament is some grace, since it is said «a Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace»: therefore, since the mystical body is not grace, it is not the reality of this Sacrament.

6. Likewise, the reality of any Sacrament of the new law is its effect; but the mystical body of Christ is not the effect of this Sacrament, because an effect does not precede its cause; but the mystical body precedes the Sacrament: therefore etc.

> **Conclusion.** In the Sacrament of the eucharist the visible species is the sign of the true and mystical body of Christ; the true body is the reality of the species and the sign and cause of the mystical body; and this last is the reality of the true body and the truth of the sensible sign.

**I respond:** As the Master says[^1], there are three things in this Sacrament: the visible species, the true body of Christ, and the mystical body. And according to what Hugh says[^2], «the first is the sign of the second and the third; the second is the reality of the first and the sign and cause of the third; and the third is the reality of the second and the truth of the first». Hence there is found here a relation of effecting and of signifying, whence it is a true Sacrament of the new law.

*To the first.* To that which is objected, that it ought to have a likeness; it must be said that the species has a comparison to the *constituting matter*, that is, that out of which it consists, since it is from grains; and a comparison to the *effect* that follows, that is, what it gives, which is to nourish. If to the matter, then it is from purest grains united to one another: and thus it has a likeness with the mystical body, which consists of pure faithful, joined together by faith and charity[^3]. And if you object that it is of diverse operations: it does not hold, because they are united as alike in the unity of faith and charity. — But if it be compared to the *effect*, which is to nourish, then it has a likeness to the true body of Christ, which is truly food.

It can nevertheless be said that it is compared to both by reason of those things out of which it is made, since the true body of Christ is «from purest blood[^4]», and the mystical body of Christ is from pure faithful. But that a variety of members is here signified, this is incidental, namely by reason of the body of Christ which he drew from the Virgin, which is an organic body. — And if you object that the species is not composed nor nourishes; it must be said that they retain the properties of the substance which was previously there[^5], and by reason of that they are fitting signs.

*To the second.* To that which is objected concerning causality, it must be said that that which is Sacrament only, if it be compared to the *medium*, of itself has no relation of effecting or causing anything, except when a word is joined to it, as is evident in water with respect to the character: so in the species with respect to the body. Likewise, if it be compared to the *third*, it has a relation of effecting *by means of the second*, as the outward washing with the character[^6]; likewise here the outward species by reason of the true body of Christ inwardly contained, which unites and incorporates.

*To the third and fourth.* To that which is objected concerning the true body, it must be said that of itself it has a natural aptitude for representing. But that it represents, this does not belong to it *of itself*, but as it *underlies the* visible *species* that are instituted; and as to this it is a visible sign, voluntarily instituted in another, not in itself; nor is it instituted for *signifying* in itself, but for *effecting* in itself as the more noble, and for *signifying* indeed as it is contained in another; and this in no way derogates from it[^7].

*To the fifth and sixth.* To that which is objected concerning the mystical body, that it is not the reality; it must be said that the reality of this Sacrament is not called the mystical body by reason of its parts, but by reason of the union; and that union is the grace and effect of the Sacrament. — If you object that the effect follows the cause; it must be said that union in the mystical body can be twofold: either from the unity of the binding virtues[^8], or from sacramental grace, according to which those who receive are more incorporated into Christ, and thus consequently are more united to one another. The first precedes and is not the reality; the second follows and is the effect and reality of this Sacrament. And so this is clear.

la: Hic in lit. c. 7.

en: Here in the text [of the Master], ch. 7.

la: Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VIII. c. 8: Et sic quidem, cum tria in uno ibi sint, in primo quidem signum invenitur secundi, in secundo autem causa tertii, in tertio vero virtus secundi et veritas primi; et haec tria in uno sunt et unum Sacramentum. — Hoc testimonium iisdem verbis (incipiendo a *in primo*) exhibetur a cod. aa textui nostro adiunctum. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 36.

en: Bk. II, *On the Sacraments*, pt. VIII, ch. 8: And so indeed, since three are there in one, in the first is found the sign of the second, in the second the cause of the third, and in the third the power of the second and the truth of the first; and these three are in one and are one Sacrament. — This testimony is set forth in the same words (beginning at *in the first*) by cod. aa, adjoined to our text. Cf. Innocent III, *On the Mystery of the Altar*, bk. IV, ch. 36.

la: Cfr. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 7, verba Augustini. — De seq. obiectione vide Rom. 13, 4. seq., et I. Cor. 12, 12. seqq.

en: Cf. here in the text of the Master, ch. 7, the words of Augustine. — On the following objection see Rom. 13:4 f. and 1 Cor. 12:12 ff.

la: Damasc., III. de Fide orthod. c. 2. et IV. c. 14. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 86, nota 5, et hic lit. Magistri, c. 7. in fine. — Cod. aa *ex quibus conficitur*, scilicet ratione materiae, quia. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Damascene, *On the Orthodox Faith*, bk. III, ch. 2, and bk. IV, ch. 14. Cf. vol. III, p. 86, note 5, and here in the text of the Master, ch. 7, at the end. — Cod. aa: *from which it is made*, namely by reason of matter, because. Cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 7.

la: Sive ut hic in lit. Magistri, c. 6, dicitur: Tenent species vocabula rerum, quae ante fuerunt, scilicet panis et vini.

en: Or, as is said here in the text of the Master, ch. 6: The species keep the names of the things which were there before, namely of the bread and wine.

la: Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I. — In fine solut. cod. aa addit: *in corpus mysticum, sunt quasi causa ad ipsum*.

en: Cf. above d. 3, p. I, a. I, q. I. — At the end of the solution cod. aa adds: *into the mystical body, they are as it were a cause toward it*.

la: Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 7, et infra d. 10. p. I. dub. 2. — Cod. aa praemissa sic exhibet: et quantum ad hoc est signum visibile, sicut de charactere dictum est [d. 6. p. I. q. 2. ad I. arg.], qui est visibilis respectu exterioris [elementi]. Vel potest dici, quod illa definitio datur de signo, quod est signum tantum et quod non continet rem.

en: See here the text of the Master, ch. 7, and below d. 10, p. I, dub. 2. — Cod. aa presents the foregoing thus: and as to this it is a visible sign, as was said of the character [d. 6, p. I, q. 2, to the first argument], which is visible with respect to the outward [element]. Or it can be said that that definition is given of a sign which is a sign only and which does not contain the reality.

la: Cod. M *coniungentium*, edd. perperam *contingentium*. Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 7.

en: Cod. M *coniungentium* (joining together); the editions wrongly *contingentium* (touching). Cf. here the text of the Master, ch. 7. ---

latin_scholion:
> *Scholion proprium articuli II; hic redditur tantum sectio quaestioni 1 deputata (n. «1.», de essentia eucharistiae / quid sit res et Sacramentum). Sectio «II.» et apparatus «De hac 2. quaestione», in pag. 197 sequentia, quaestioni 2 deputantur et ad chunk* `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q2` *pertinent.*

1. Auctoritate Concilii Tridentini (Sess. XIII. can. 4.) constat, eucharistiam non consistere in solo «usu, dum sumitur; sed ante vel post et in hostiis seu particulis consecratis, quae post communionem reservantur vel supersunt», esse verum corpus Christi. Hinc concludere licet, essentiam eucharistiae consistere in re permanenti, et sumtionem eiusdem nec esse Sacramentum ab illa re permanenti distinctum, nec partem ipsius integralis, sed potius applicationem huius Sacramenti. Variae tamen de essentia huius Sacramenti in scholis exortae sunt sententiae; communius autem non approbatur opinio quorundam, quod

<!-- page 197 -->

consistat vel in verbis consecrationis, vel in ipsa actione consecrativa (cui secundae opinioni prius favit S. Thom. in Comment., quam reliquit in Summa). S. Bonaventura tenet, species consecratas, prout et connotant et continent corpus et sanguinem Christi, constituere essentialiter Sacramentum eucharistiae; ita ut species illae et corpus Christi completam habeant rationem Sacramenti, et species visibiles significent primario corpus Christi et secundario gratiam sacramentalem (cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. dub. 3. 4.). Idem in re docent Alex. Hal., S. Thom. in Sum., Scot. aliique communius, si praescindimus a quibusdam rebus secundariis.

De hac I. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 10. m. 3. a. 3. — Scot., hic q. I. circa finem. — S. Thom., hic q. I. a. I. quaestiunc. I; S. III. q. 73. a. 1. — B. Albert., hic a. 12. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. I. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. I. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., de hac et seq. q. hic q. 1.

---

english_scholion:
> *Article-level scholion; only the section keyed to Question 1 is rendered here (n. «1.,» on the essence of the eucharist / what is the reality and what the Sacrament). The section «II.» and the «On this second question» reference list, which follow on p.197, are keyed to Question 2 and belong to the chunk* `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q2`.

1. By the authority of the Council of Trent (Sess. XIII, can. 4) it is established that the eucharist does not consist in its use alone, «while it is being received; but before or after, and in the hosts or consecrated particles which after communion are reserved or remain over», it is the true body of Christ. From this it is permissible to conclude that the essence of the eucharist consists in an abiding reality, and that the receiving of the same is neither a Sacrament distinct from that abiding reality, nor an integral part of it, but rather an application of this Sacrament. Various opinions, however, have arisen in the schools concerning the essence of this Sacrament; but the opinion of some is not more commonly approved, namely that

it consists either in the words of consecration, or in the consecrating action itself (to which second opinion S. Thomas earlier inclined in the Commentary, which he abandoned in the Summa). S. Bonaventure holds that the consecrated species, inasmuch as they both connote and contain the body and blood of Christ, essentially constitute the Sacrament of the eucharist; so that those species and the body of Christ have the complete account of a Sacrament, and the visible species signify primarily the body of Christ and secondarily sacramental grace (cf. below d. 10, p. I, dub. 3, 4). The same in substance is taught by Alexander of Hales, S. Thomas in the Summa, Scotus, and others more commonly, if we set aside certain secondary matters.

On this first question: Alexander of Hales, *Summa* pt. IV, q. 10, m. 3, a. 3. — Scotus, here q. I, near the end. — S. Thomas, here q. I, a. I, quaestiuncula I; *Summa* III, q. 73, a. 1. — B. Albert, here a. 12. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I, a. I. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. I, q. I. — Durandus, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, on this and the following question, here q. 1.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin reflowed from the raw IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 22128–22330, left column then right column) and corrected against the PDF column-bands for printed pp.195–196 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p19{5,6}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), which are authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-shattered (Respondeo, Solutio, Scholion, footers). English is a literal parallel.

**Alignment.** Confirmed: running heads read "DIST. VIII. P. II. ART. II. QUAEST. I." The ARTICULUS II opener + QUAESTIO 1 begin on **p.195** (left column), NOT p.194 — all of p.194 (both columns + its footnotes 1–9) belongs to the preceding ART I, q2. No q-swap; the opener divisio "Primo quaeritur, quid sit ibi res… Secundo quaeritur de unitate…" matches this being q1 (res-et-Sacramentum), with q2 = unitas.

**Page-split map.** Objection bodies on **p.195** (L: opener + obj. 1–2; R: obj. 3–6). Conclusio / Respondeo / Solutio on **p.196** (L: Conclusio, Respondeo, *Ad 1* first part; R: *Ad 1* cont., *Ad 2*, *Ad 3.4*, *Ad 5.6*). The article-level Scholion section "1." begins on p.196-L bottom and continues across the break onto **p.197** (q1-keyed tail). Page breaks marked `<!-- page N -->`.

**Footer / apparatus ownership.** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page.
- **p.194 footnotes 1–9** → anchor in the preceding ART I, q2 body; owned by `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a1-q2`. Not claimed here.
- **p.195 footnotes 1–12** → anchor in this chunk's objection bodies EXCEPT footnotes **2 and 3**, which anchor in the previous article's "De variatione formarum / supra distinctione tertia" tail printed at the top of p.195-R — those two belong to `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a1-q2`. To keep the apparatus self-contained and consecutively renumbered, the p.195 notes are not reproduced inline; this chunk carries the **p.196 footers 1–8** (all eight anchor in the Respondeo/Solutio body), renumbered `[^1]`–`[^8]`. (Note: the p.195 footnote markers are retained in this chunk's body for fidelity to the print, but only the p.196 apparatus block is defined here; consult a1-q2 / the prior chunk for the p.195 footer text if needed.)
- **p.196 footers 1–8** → every one anchors in the body: Respondeo (Magister¹, Hugo²); *Ad 1* (sanguinibus⁴, fuit⁵); *Ad 2* (charactere⁶); *Ad 3.4* (derogat sibi⁷); *Ad 5.6* (compingentium⁸); ³ = the "verba Augustini / de seq. obiectione" cross-reference of the Solutio. The Scholion section "1." carries no footnotes of its own on p.196. Claimed and renumbered here.
- **p.197 footnotes** and the Scholion section "II." + "De hac 2. quaestione" reference list (raw L182–199) are keyed to Quaestio 2 → owned by `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a2-q2`. Not claimed here.

**Scholion disposition.** ART II carries one article-level scholion. Only the Q1-keyed material is rendered: section "**1.**" (essence of the eucharist — Trent, abiding reality, S. Bonaventure's position) plus the "**De hac I. quaestione**" reference list. The "II." section and "De hac 2. quaestione" list are flagged as belonging to a2-q2. `has_scholion: true`.

**`[?]` flags.** None unresolved. Minor OCR garbles silently corrected against the bands: *Sacramenium/Sacramenlum*→Sacramentum, *lertii*→tertii, *heterogeneum/homogeneum* restored, *characteris/charaderis*→character/charactere, *compingentium* (note 8 itself records the variant *coniungentium*/*contingentium*), *cibare*. In *Ad 3.4* the OCR carried an intrusive token after "naturalem aptitudinem" ("sonaiam") with no Latin sense and no support in the PDF band — treated as scanner noise and dropped.

**J4 Class B fix (2026-07-17).** `[^3]` was defined in the Apparatus but anchored nowhere in either body (orphaned definition). Verified against the printed page (450 dpi, `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p196-L-{0,1}.png`): the printed superscript **³** sits on *copulatis*, in "...et sic habet similitudinem cum corpore mystico, quod constat ex fidelibus puris, fide et caritate copulatis³. Et si obiicias, quod est diversarum operationum..." — this matches the def's content exactly (def 3: "Cfr. hic in lit. Magistri, c. 7, verba Augustini" = the Augustinian formula of the mystical body bound by faith/charity that Bonaventure is echoing here; "De seq. obiectione vide Rom. 13, 4 seq., et I. Cor. 12, 12 seqq." = the "following objection," i.e. *Et si obiicias, quod est diversarum operationum*, immediately after). Added `[^3]` in the Latin body at *copulatis* and mirrored it in the English body at the corresponding "charity" (end of "joined together by faith and charity"). No other text changed.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

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

title_alt:
Utrum eucharistia sit unum Sacramentum
Whether the eucharist is one Sacrament

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 197 -->

### Quaestio II. *De unitate Sacramenti eucharistiae.*

Secundo quaeritur de unitate huius Sacramenti. Et quod sit unum Sacramentum, probatur:

1. Quia Ambrosius[^1] dicit, quod simplex est Sacramentum; sed hoc est Sacramentum: ergo simplex, ergo unum.

2. Item, ratione videtur: quia hoc Sacramentum unius effectus est causa et ad unum ordinatur: ergo est unum, et non plura.

3. Item, tantum septem sunt Sacramenta; sed si hoc non esset unum, essent Sacramenta plura septem[^2]: ergo etc.

**Contra:**

1. In Collecta[^3]: « Purificent nos, quaesumus Domine, Sacramenta, quae sumsimus », et in multis aliis locis: ergo etc.

2. Item, significata in hoc Sacramento sunt plura, scilicet corpus Christi *verum* et corpus Christi *mysticum*[^4], quae omnino habent differentem unitatem — nam corpus Christi *verum* est unum unitate *integritatis*, sed corpus *mysticum* est unum unitate *formae aggregationis* — ergo etc. — *Si dicas*, quod sunt ad *invicem ordinata*, ita quod unum per alterum[^5]; *obiicitur*, quia plura sunt significata immediate et ex aequo, ut corpus et sanguis. — *Si dicas*, quod sunt *annexa*; hoc non solvit, quia secundum veritatem Sacramenti non sunt ut annexa.

3. Item, Sacramentum est signum essentialiter[^6]; sed plurificato superiori, plurificatur inferius; sed in eucharistia sunt plura signa: ergo et plura Sacramenta. *Si dicas*, quod plura sunt signa ratione specierum, sed unum significatum, et ideo unum Sacramentum; *contra*: in nomine est vox et significatum, sicut in Sacramento; sed Marcus et Tullius, etsi idem significent, tamen diversa sunt nomina: ergo et in Sacramento isto, etsi idem sit res, plura tamen debent dici Sacramenta.

4. Item, ista duo constituunt Sacramentum: verbum et elementum, et elementum in ratione *materialis*, verbum in ratione *formalis*[^7]: ergo ubi plura verba et elementa, ibi plura Sacramenta; sed sic est in proposito. — *Si dicas*, quod ordinata sunt ad unum, et ideo sunt unum; *contra*: causa universalis et particularis ad unum effectum ordinantur, nec tamen sunt unum, sed plures causae[^8]: ergo etc.

### Conclusio.

> Eucharistiae Sacramentum non est unum unitate *simplicitatis*, sed *integritatis* et in *comparatione*, quia signum ordinatur ad unum ratione naturae et institutionis.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod unitas Sacramenti non est unitas *simplicitatis* — constat enim ex verbo et elemento — sed *integritatis*; nec integritatis absolutae, sed in *comparatione*, quia non uniuntur in tertio tanquam in *forma*, sed tanquam in signo. Quoniam igitur hoc Sacramentum, quamvis duo signa contineat et duo verba, quia tamen

<!-- page 198 -->

ex his *perfectum* resultat signum et *ordinatum ad unum*, scilicet ad unionem corporis *mystici*; ideo est unum Sacramentum[^9].

Ratio autem talis *integritatis* et *ordinationis* unius dispositive venit a *natura* — quia nec panis est per se plene reficiens nec vinum, sed utrumque; una enim plena refectio in natura venit ex utroque, et ita disposita sunt ad unam refectionem significandam — sed completive venit ab *institutione* divina, quae una institutione haec duo signa ordinavit ad significandam unam perfectam refectionem; et ideo unum est Sacramentum ratione *naturae* et *institutionis divinae*. Unde quia ex pluribus integratur, ideo Gregorius[^10] materialiter loquendo, dicit *Sacramenta*; quia vero una ordinatione *ordinatur*, ideo statim dicit: « et praesta, ut hoc tuum Sacramentum » etc.

**Solutio oppositorum:**

1. Et sic patet illud Gregorii.

2. Ad illud quod primo obiicitur, quod plura sunt significata; dicendum, quod unum est propter alterum et per alterum, quia *verum*[^11] significat *mysticum*. — Ad illud autem quod obiicitur de sanguine, dicendum, quod *annexa* sunt. Unde sicut oblatio agni et eius sanguinis non sunt duae oblationes vel sacrificia[^12]; sic in proposito intelligendum. — Et si non sufficit, dicendum, quod ordinantur ad unum significatum ultimum[^13].

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod sunt plura signa; dicendum, quod integraliter loquendo et materialiter, verum est, quia plures species; sed tamen unum signum integrum, sicut ostensum est. Non sic diversae voces sunt unum nomen, immo diversas rationes habent innotescendi et diversas institutiones, ideo plura nomina[^14]: si autem unam haberent institutionem, unum esset nomen, sicut hoc nomen *Bonaventura* vel hoc nomen *Bonushomo*.

4. Ad aliud similiter patet responsio: quia, quamvis sint duo verba et elementa, unum tamen sunt Sacramentum, quia verbum et elementum non conveniunt ad unum Sacramentum nisi ratione institutionis ordinantis ad unum[^15]; quia ergo hic est institutio illa, plura ad unum ordinans: ideo unum Sacramentum. — Per hoc patet, quod non est simile de causa universali; quia non tantum ad unum effectum causae particularis ordinatur universalis, sed ad multos alios; sed haec duo ad unum perfectum Sacramentum ordinantur, perfectum, inquam, dico quantum ad significationem, quia in neutro salvatur ratio perfectae refectionis naturalis per se, sed in utroque simul, ut tactum est[^16].

---

english:
<!-- page 197 -->

### Question II. *On the unity of the Sacrament of the eucharist.*

Second, it is asked about the unity of this Sacrament. And that it is one Sacrament is proved:

1. Because Ambrose[^1] says that the Sacrament is simple; but this is a Sacrament: therefore it is simple, therefore one.

2. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because this Sacrament is the cause of one effect and is ordered to one thing: therefore it is one, and not many.

3. Likewise, there are only seven Sacraments; but if this were not one, there would be more than seven Sacraments[^2]: therefore etc.

**On the contrary:**

1. In the Collect[^3]: « May the Sacraments which we have received purify us, we beseech thee, O Lord », and in many other places: therefore etc.

2. Likewise, the things signified in this Sacrament are several, namely the *true* body of Christ and the *mystical* body of Christ[^4], which have an entirely different unity — for the *true* body of Christ is one by the unity of *integrity*, but the *mystical* body is one by the unity of *the form of aggregation* — therefore etc. — *If you say* that they are *ordered to one another*, so that the one is through the other[^5]; *it is objected* that the things signified are several immediately and equally, as the body and the blood. — *If you say* that they are *annexed*; this does not solve it, because according to the truth of the Sacrament they are not as annexed.

3. Likewise, a Sacrament is essentially a sign[^6]; but when the superior is multiplied, the inferior is multiplied; but in the eucharist there are several signs: therefore also several Sacraments. *If you say* that there are several signs by reason of the species, but one thing signified, and therefore one Sacrament; *on the contrary*: in a name there is the utterance and the thing signified, just as in a Sacrament; but *Marcus* and *Tullius*, even though they signify the same thing, are nonetheless different names: therefore also in this Sacrament, even though the reality be the same, they ought nonetheless to be called several Sacraments.

4. Likewise, these two constitute the Sacrament: the word and the element, and the element in the character of the *material*, the word in the character of the *formal*[^7]: therefore where there are several words and elements, there are several Sacraments; but so it is in the case at hand. — *If you say* that they are ordered to one thing, and therefore are one; *on the contrary*: a universal cause and a particular cause are ordered to one effect, and yet they are not one, but several causes[^8]: therefore etc.

### Conclusion.

> The Sacrament of the eucharist is not one by the unity of *simplicity*, but of *integrity* and in *comparison*, because a sign is ordered to one thing by reason of nature and institution.

**I respond:** It must be said that the unity of the Sacrament is not the unity of *simplicity* — for it is constituted of word and element — but of *integrity*; and not of absolute integrity, but in *comparison*, because they are not united in a third thing as in a *form*, but as in a sign. Therefore, since this Sacrament, although it contain two signs and two words, yet because

<!-- page 198 -->

from these there results a *perfect* sign *ordered to one thing*, namely to the union of the *mystical* body; therefore it is one Sacrament[^9].

Now the ground of such *integrity* and *ordination* to one thing comes dispositively from *nature* — because neither bread by itself fully refreshes nor wine, but both together; for one full refreshment in nature comes from both, and so they are disposed to signify one refreshment — but it comes completively from the divine *institution*, which by one institution ordered these two signs to signify one perfect refreshment; and therefore it is one Sacrament by reason of *nature* and *divine institution*. Hence, because it is integrated out of several things, therefore Gregory[^10], speaking materially, says *Sacraments*; but because it is *ordered* by one ordination, therefore he straightway says: « and grant that this thy Sacrament » etc.

**Solution of the objections:**

1. And thus that saying of Gregory is clear.

2. To that which is objected first, that the things signified are several; it must be said that the one is on account of the other and through the other, because the *true* body[^11] signifies the *mystical*. — And to that which is objected concerning the blood, it must be said that they are *annexed*. Hence just as the offering of the lamb and of its blood are not two offerings or sacrifices[^12]; so it is to be understood in the case at hand. — And if that does not suffice, it must be said that they are ordered to one ultimate thing signified[^13].

3. To that which is objected, that there are several signs; it must be said that, speaking integrally and materially, it is true, because there are several species; but nonetheless there is one integral sign, as has been shown. It is not so that diverse utterances are one name; rather they have diverse grounds of becoming known and diverse institutions, therefore several names[^14]: but if they had one institution, there would be one name, as this name *Bonaventura* or this name *Bonushomo*.

4. To the other the answer is likewise clear: because, although there be two words and elements, yet they are one Sacrament, because the word and the element do not come together into one Sacrament except by reason of the institution ordering them to one thing[^15]; therefore since here is that institution, ordering several things to one, therefore it is one Sacrament. — Through this it is clear that the case is not the same as that of the universal cause; because the universal cause is ordered not only to the one effect of the particular cause, but to many others; whereas these two are ordered to one perfect Sacrament — perfect, I say, with respect to signification, because in neither is the character of a perfect natural refreshment preserved by itself, but in both together, as has been touched upon[^16].

---

la: Vide supra pag. 75, nota 6.

en: See above, p. 75, note 6.

la: Vat. *quam septem.*

en: The Vatican edition reads *than seven.*

la: In Missal. Roman. inter Orationes diversas, scil. Oratio pro vivis et defunctis, quae etiam ponitur in IV. feria Cinerum. — Aliam Collectam vide infra lit. Magistri, d. IX. c. 3. Cfr. etiam Postcommunio in Missa pro S. Nicomede M. (15. Sept.), in IV. feria Cinerum et feriae IV. in hebdomada 4. Quadrages., quae a Gregorio in lib. Sacrament. exhibentur. — Post *loquendo* edd. addunt *in Collecta*.

en: In the Roman Missal among the various Orations, namely the Oration for the living and the dead, which is also placed on the Wednesday of Ash Wednesday. — For another Collect see below in the text of the Master, d. IX, c. 3. Compare also the Postcommunion in the Mass for St. Nicomedes M. (Sept. 15), on Ash Wednesday and on the Wednesday of the 4th week of Lent, which are set forth by Gregory in the book of the Sacramentary. — After *loquendo* the editions add *in Collecta*.

la: Ut ostensum est quaest. praeced.

en: As was shown in the preceding question.

la: Respicitur illud Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2: Ubi unum propter alterum, ibi tantum unum. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Cod. S *ad alterum*, cod. bb *post alterum*.

en: Reference is made to that saying of Aristotle, *Topics* III, c. 2: Where one thing is on account of another, there is only one. Compare vol. II, p. 639, note 2. — Codex S reads *toward the other*, codex bb *after the other*.

la: Cfr. supra d. 1. p. 1. q. 2. — *Minor* colligitur ex dicto Aristot., supra pag. 110, nota 5. — In fine arg. edd. *isto et sint res* pro *sit res.*

en: Compare above, d. 1, p. 1, q. 2. — The *minor* is gathered from the saying of Aristotle, above p. 110, note 5. — At the end of the argument the editions read *this and they be realities* for *the reality be.*

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. I. dub. 11. et d. 3. p. 1. a. 1. q. 2.

la: Exemplum continetur illis verbis Aristot., II. Phys. text. 26. (c. 2.): Homo [causa particularis] enim hominem generat et sol [causa universalis]. Cfr. 1. Sent. d. 45. n. 2. q. 2. in corp. — Pro *sint* enim edd. *sunt cum causa.*

en: The example is contained in those words of Aristotle, *Physics* II, text 26 (c. 2): For man [the particular cause] generates man, and the sun [the universal cause]. Compare 1 Sent., d. 45, n. 2, q. 2, in the body. — For *be* the editions read *are with a cause.*

la: Cfr. Boeth., de Unitate et uno, ubi etiam divisiones unitatis exhibentur. Vide tom. III. pag. 896, nota 2. — Pro *unionem* cod. H *unitatem.* Inferius post *una* ex eodem cod. H supplevimus *enim*, pro quo cod. aa *inde.*

en: Compare Boethius, *On Unity and the One*, where the divisions of unity are also set forth. See vol. III, p. 896, note 2. — For *union* codex H reads *unity.* Further below, after *una* we have supplied *for* from the same codex H, for which codex aa reads *thence.*

la: Vide supra pag. 197, nota 3. Cfr. Innocent. III, IV. de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 38, ubi diversae opiniones de hac quaestione recensentur.

en: See above, p. 197, note 3. Compare Innocent III, *On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar* IV, c. 38, where the diverse opinions on this question are reviewed.

la: Codd. O U supplent *corpus.*

en: Codices O and U supply *body.*

la: Anselm., ad Waleranni querelas responsio (de Sacram. diversitate), c. 2: Sicut unus est Christus, qui se ipsum obtulit pro nobis, ita una est oblatio et una hostia in pane et vino, quam offerimus.

en: Anselm, *Reply to the complaints of Waleran* (on the diversity of the Sacrament), c. 2: Just as Christ is one, who offered himself for us, so there is one offering and one victim in the bread and wine, which we offer.

la: Scilicet unam perfectam refectionem.

en: Namely, one perfect refreshment.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 74, nota 5. — Inferius pro *vel* edd. *et.*

en: Compare above, p. 74, note 5. — Further below, for *or* the editions read *and.*

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

en: See above, d. 6, p. II, a. 2, q. 1, in the body.

la: Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.

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

translators_notes:
- **Provenance.** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 22331–22480) with the Vol II/III/IV PDF-priority inversion applied to the cascade-shattered Respondeo/Solutio/footers; PDF column bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{197,198}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` are authoritative for those regions (offset pdf = printed + 20). English is a fresh literal parallel.
- **Page-span correction.** Despite the raw OCR placing the `QUAESTIO II` title near the head of the range, the printed **QUAESTIO II title and entire body fall on pp. 197–198, not p. 196**. p. 196 (running head "196") is wholly occupied by the END of a2-q1 (its CONCLUSIO, RESPONDEO, and Solutio oppositorum), followed by the joint ART II SCHOLION. The QUAESTIO II title is printed near the foot of p. 197-L-0, immediately after the scholion's `De 1. quaestione` / `De 2. quaestione` citation lists. Hence `printed_pages: [197, 198]`.
- **Page-split map.**
  - p. 197: title + arguments 1–4 (for/contra), Conclusio, opening of Respondeo; footers nn. 1–8 (nn. 1–5 left column, nn. 6–8 right column).
  - p. 198: remainder of Respondeo + Ratio, Conclusio-restatement, full Solutio oppositorum (replies 1–4); footers nn. 1–8 (nn. 1–4 left column, nn. 5–8 right column).
- **Footer-ownership.**
  - p. 196 footers belong wholly to **a2-q1** (its Solutio + scholion) — none claimed here.
  - p. 197 nn. 1–8 and p. 198 nn. 1–8 (16 total) all anchor in this quaestio's body and are claimed here.
  - **p. 198 footer n. 9** (`Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 2. … — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal.`) anchors to `graviter peccat` in **Dub. I** of the DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI, and is left to the dubia/littera neighbor chunk — NOT claimed here. (Likewise the four p. 198 left-column footers physically printed under the Dub. I "Opinio 2" text that pertain to the dubia body are a separate matter; the four left-column footers nn. 1–4 claimed here are the q2 anchors Boethius/Gregory-cross-ref/codex-corpus/Anselm, confirmed by content alignment.)
- **Scholion disposition.** `has_scholion: false`. The ART II scholion is a **single joint block** ("SCHOLION" → `De 1. quaestione` → `II. Licet eucharistia…` → `De 2. quaestione praeter Scotum…`) printed on pp. 196-R–197-R, i.e. in the a2-q1 page region and physically preceding the QUAESTIO II body. Per the dispatch rule (joint ART II scholion is rendered in a2-q1), **none is rendered here**; footnote [^16] (`Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.`) is Bonaventure's own back-reference to that scholion.
- **Quaestio boundary.** The quaestio body ends at `…in utroque simul, ut tactum est[^16]` (raw L22480, foot of p. 198-R-1), immediately before `DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI` / `DUB. I`. The DUBIA are the d.8 *littera Magistri* dubia, a separate chunk type — they are NOT part of this quaestio and NOT a Pars-II quaestio-dubia (d.8 Pars II has no quaestio-level dubia). The stale `vol4/bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-dubia.md` skeleton is spurious and is being deleted by the coordinator.
- **d.9 boundary confirmed.** `DISTINCTIO IX.` begins at raw **L22542** ("De duobus manducandi modis"), outside this range — everything from L22542 on is excluded.
- **[?] flags.** None. OCR was fully resolvable against the PDF column bands; all 16 apparatus entries and the body read cleanly.

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

license_source: Public Domain Mark 1.0

license_translation: CC BY-NC 4.0

license_apparatus: CC BY-NC 4.0


title: Dist. 8, Part 1, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. VIII, Pars I)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. VIII, Part I)

source_text:
<!-- page 187 -->

## DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo de hoc quod dicit Magister: *Post Sacramentum baptismi et confirmationis*. Videtur enim non bene ordinare Sacramenta; prius enim est *cibari*, quod est eucharistiae, quam *confirmari*, quia parvulorum est *cibari*.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis eucharistia sit cibus communis omnium bonorum, tamen dicit Augustinus[^1] quod est cibus grandium et perfectorum; et ita sequitur illa duo Sacramenta. Praeterea, secundum consuetudinem modernae Ecclesiae prius confirmatur parvulus, quam communicetur[^2].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur: quare hoc Sacramentum potius dicitur *eucharistia*[^3], cum in omnibus detur *gratia bona*, et in baptismo maxime detur *magna gratia*?

<!-- page 188 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod hoc proprie dicitur de eucharistia, tum quia principaliter est ibi *ratio boni*, tum etiam quia *ratio gratiae*: ratio boni, quia «bonum est diffusivum et communicativum»[^4]. Unde cibus, qui communicat se pluribus et per partes, est bonus; qui communicat se pluribus totum et successive, est melior, ut verbum Dei, quod praedicatur; qui vero communicat se pluribus et totum et simul, iste est optimus; et talis est iste cibus[^5]. Hic etiam est ille cibus, qui est summum bonum, scilicet Christus Dominus[^6], et sic praecipue reperitur ratio boni. — Reperitur etiam ibi principaliter *ratio gratiae* tum per modum contentivi, tum per modum effectivi[^7]. Per modum contentivi, quia hoc est solum Sacramentum, quo ipsa gratia est contenta secundum veritatem, immo plenitudo gratiae; unde assimilatur ipsi caritati, quae unit fini et habet idem pro obiecto et pro fine[^8]. Ratione effectivi, quoniam hic est carbo ignitus, caro scilicet Christi, quae inflammat et beatificat, non tantum gratificat, sed et multipliciter adiuvat. Primum quidem, quia est cibus incorporans capiti, Ioannis sexto: *Qui manducat carnem meam in me manet*. Secundo, quia fortificat, Psalmus: *Panis cor hominis confirmat*. Tertio, quia delectat, Sapientiae decimo sexto: *Panem de caelo dedisti eis omne habentem delectamentum* etc. Quarto, valet ad augmentum fidei, sicut dicitur infra distinctione duodecima. Quinto, ad sublevationem spei, Matthaei ultimo: *Ecce ego vobiscum* etc. Sexto, ad dilatationem caritatis, quia est memoriale amoris: *Hoc quotiescumque feceritis* etc. Septimo, ad remissionem venialium, sicut dicit Innocentius.

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod recte dicitur *viaticum, quia nos in via reficit* etc.; quia, si dicitur *viaticum*, quia est viatorum; pari ratione et alia Sacramenta.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod viaticum dicitur triplici ex causa. Prima est, quia est cibus itinerantium, quia datur transeuntibus de hac vita ad patriam. Secunda, quia institutus est a Christo ut itinerante sive transeunte. Tertia, quia signum est transitus Christi, sicut phase.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod hoc Sacramentum Dominus instituit, quare magis Dominus ipse per se sive in propria persona hoc Sacramentum et baptismum instituit?

**Respondeo:** Et ad hoc dicendum, quod quia in baptismo est inchoatio, et in hoc consummatio; ideo illud instituit in principio suae praedicationis, istud in fine et in recessu a discipulis; et ideo haec duo confirmavit, Matthaei ultimo.

---

english:
## DOUBTS CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE MASTER

### Doubt I

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first concerning what the Master says: *After the Sacrament of baptism and confirmation*. For it seems that he does not order the Sacraments well; for to *be fed*, which belongs to the eucharist, comes before being *confirmed*, since to *be fed* belongs to little children.

**I respond:** It must be said that, although the eucharist is the common food of all the good, nevertheless Augustine[^1] says that it is the food of the grown and of the perfect; and so it follows those two Sacraments. Moreover, according to the custom of the modern Church a little child is confirmed before being given communion[^2].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked: why is this Sacrament rather called *eucharist*[^3], since in all of them *good grace* is given, and in baptism especially *great grace* is given?

**I respond:** It must be said that this is properly said of the eucharist, both because the *account of the good* is principally there, and also because the *account of grace* is there: the account of the good, because «the good is self-diffusive and self-communicating»[^4]. Hence the food which communicates itself to many and by parts is good; that which communicates itself to many wholly and successively is better, as the word of God which is preached; but that which communicates itself to many both wholly and all at once, this is best; and such is this food[^5]. This too is that food which is the highest good, namely Christ the Lord[^6], and thus the account of the good is preeminently found here. — There is also found here principally the *account of grace*, both by way of containing and by way of effecting[^7]. By way of containing, because this is the only Sacrament in which grace itself is contained according to truth, indeed the fullness of grace; whence it is likened to charity itself, which unites to the end and has the same thing for object and for end[^8]. By reason of effecting, because here is a burning coal, namely the flesh of Christ, which inflames and beatifies, not only makes pleasing in grace, but also helps in many ways. First indeed, because it is food incorporating us into the Head, John six: *Whoever eats my flesh abides in me*. Second, because it strengthens, the Psalm: *Bread strengthens the heart of man*. Third, because it delights, Wisdom sixteen: *You gave them bread from heaven having all delight* etc. Fourth, it avails for the increase of faith, as is said below in distinction twelve. Fifth, for the lifting up of hope, Matthew last: *Behold I am with you* etc. Sixth, for the enlargement of charity, since it is a memorial of love: *As often as you do this* etc. Seventh, for the remission of venial sins, as Innocent says.

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that it is rightly called *viaticum, because it refreshes us on the way* etc.; for, if it is called *viaticum* because it belongs to wayfarers, by equal reasoning the other Sacraments would be too.

**I respond:** It must be said that it is called viaticum for a threefold cause. The first is, because it is the food of travelers, since it is given to those passing from this life to the fatherland. The second, because it was instituted by Christ as traveling or passing over. The third, because it is the sign of Christ's passover, as the *phase*.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked concerning what he says, that the Lord instituted this Sacrament: why did the Lord rather, by himself or in his own person, institute this Sacrament and baptism?

**I respond:** And to this it must be said that, because in baptism there is the beginning, and in this the consummation; therefore he instituted the former at the beginning of his preaching, the latter at the end and in his departure from the disciples; and therefore he confirmed these two, Matthew last.

---

la: Cibus sum grandium; cfr. Augustin., Confess. libr. VII. c. 10. n. 16, ubi loquens de aeterna Veritate ait: «O aeterna Veritas... reverberasti infirmitatem aspectus mei, radians in me vehementer... tanquam audirem vocem tuam de excelso: Cibus sum grandium; cresce, et manducabis me; nec tu me in te mutabis sicut cibum carnis tuae, sed tu mutaberis in me». Iam Guliel. Altissiod., S. p. IV. tr. 5. in principio, haec verba adaptavit Sacramento eucharistiae.

en: I am the food of the grown; cf. Augustine, Confessions book VII, c. 10, n. 16, where, speaking of the eternal Truth, he says: «O eternal Truth... you beat back the weakness of my sight, shining upon me vehemently... as though I heard your voice from on high: I am the food of the grown; grow, and you shall eat me; nor shall you change me into yourself as the food of your flesh, but you shall be changed into me». Already William of Auxerre, S. p. IV, tr. 5, at the beginning, applied these words to the Sacrament of the eucharist.

la: Pro *sequitur* non pauci codd. falso *sequuntur*. Edd. pro *et ita* substituunt: *et quia, sicut praecedentia duo Sacramenta sunt parvulorum, et parvuli prius sunt quam grandes et perfecti, ideo*. Subinde pro *Praeterea* edd. *et ita*.

en: For *it follows* not a few codices wrongly read *they follow*. The editions for *and so* substitute: *and because, just as the two preceding Sacraments belong to little children, and little children come before the grown and perfect, therefore*. Then for *Moreover* the editions read *and so*.

la: Graece Εὐχαριστία compositum ex verbis εὖ, i. e. bene (bona), et χάρις, i. e. gratia. — De gratia baptismali vide supra d. 1. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — In cod. aa hic additur *quam aliquod aliorum*.

en: In Greek *Eucharistia* is compounded from the words *eu*, i. e. well (good), and *charis*, i. e. grace. — On baptismal grace see above d. 1, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 ff. — In cod. aa there is here added *than any of the others*.

la: Secundum Dionys., de Caelest. Hierarch. c. 4. § 1. et de Div. Nom. c. 4. § 1. seq. Cfr. Eccles. Hierarch. c. 3. p. 1, ubi de eucharistia.

en: According to Dionysius, On the Celestial Hierarchy c. 4 § 1 and On the Divine Names c. 4 § 1 ff. Cf. Ecclesiastical Hierarchy c. 3 p. 1, where he treats of the eucharist.

la: Cfr. C. Qui manducant (58.) et C. Invitat Dominus (70.) ac C. Qui manducat me (75.), de Consecrat. d. 2.

en: Cf. canon *Qui manducant* (58.) and canon *Invitat Dominus* (70.) and canon *Qui manducat me* (75.), de Consecratione d. 2.

la: Edd. hic et paulo inferius *affectivi*.

en: The editions here and a little below read *affective*.

la: Vide infra Sent. d. 27. a. 1. q. 1. ad 5; a. 2. q. 1. et d. 36. q. 6. — Similitudo de carbone ignito, Ss. Patribus Graecis familiaris, refertur a Damasc., IV. de Fide orthod. c. 13: Accedamus ad eum ardenti desiderio... Crucifixi corpus suscipiamus... divinum carbonem sumamus, ut desiderii nostri ignis, accepto carbonis ardore, peccata nostra comburat et corda illuminet, divinique adeo ignis commercio inardescamus et in deos evadamus. Carbonem vidit Isaias [6, 2.]. Carbo non est simplex lignum, sed igni unitum; sic quoque panis communionis non simplex est panis, sed divinitati unitus etc. Cfr. infra d. 10. p. I. q. 1. ad 4. et d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3. fundam. 4.

en: See below in the Sentences d. 27, a. 1, q. 1, ad 5; a. 2, q. 1, and d. 36, q. 6. — The likeness of the burning coal, familiar to the Greek Fathers, is reported by Damascene, IV. On the Orthodox Faith c. 13: Let us approach him with ardent desire... Let us receive the body of the Crucified... let us take the divine coal, that the fire of our desire, having received the burning of the coal, may consume our sins and illumine our hearts, and that by intercourse with the divine fire we may be set ablaze and become gods. Isaiah saw the coal [6, 2.]. The coal is not mere wood, but wood united to fire; so too the bread of communion is not mere bread, but bread united to the divinity, etc. Cf. below d. 10, p. I, q. 1, ad 4 and d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3, fundam. 4.

la: Ioan. 6, vers. 57, ubi Vulgata: *meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem*. — Seq. textus est Ps. 103, 15; tertius Sap. 16, 20: Paratum panem de caelo praestitisti illis sine labore, omne delectamentum in se habentem. — Seq. textus Scripturae est Matth. 28, 20. — Quoad viaticum cfr. Exod. 12, 11: Est enim phase, id est transitus Domini. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 3. a. 2. § 3. seq.

en: John 6, verse 57, where the Vulgate reads: *my flesh and drinks my blood*. — The following text is Ps. 103, 15; the third Wisd. 16, 20: You furnished them bread from heaven without labor, having in itself every delight. — The following text of Scripture is Matt. 28, 20. — As to the viaticum cf. Exod. 12, 11: For it is the *phase*, that is, the passover of the Lord. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 5, m. 3, a. 2, § 3 ff. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin transcribed from the IA djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 21303–21452) and verified column-by-column against the Quaracchi PDF bands for printed pp. 187–188 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{187,188}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). The two-column body was reflowed Left-column-then-Right-column per page; the cascade-fragmented Respondeo of Dub. II (which crosses the p.188 column break) was reconstructed continuous against the p.188 L and R bands and parses as continuous Latin.

**Dubia count: 4.**
- **Dub. I** — Why does the Master order the eucharist *after* baptism and confirmation, when feeding (the eucharist) seems prior to being confirmed? (Resp.: eucharist is food of the grown/perfect, so rightly follows; and the modern Church confirms before giving communion.)
- **Dub. II** — Why is this Sacrament alone called *eucharist* ("good grace"), since all Sacraments confer good grace? (Resp.: because in it preeminently is the *ratio boni* and the *ratio gratiae* — grace contained and effected; sevenfold benefit of the "burning coal.")
- **Dub. III** — Why is it rightly called *viaticum*, when other Sacraments also serve wayfarers? (Resp.: threefold cause — food of travelers; instituted by Christ as one passing over; sign of Christ's passover/*phase*.)
- **Dub. IV** — Why did the Lord institute this Sacrament and baptism by himself in person? (Resp.: baptism = beginning, instituted at the start of his preaching; eucharist = consummation, at his departure.)

**Page-split map.**
- **p. 187** (L→R): the DUBIA header; Dub. I (objection in L-col; Respondeo bridging into R-col); Dub. II (objection only, R-col). Footer carries footnotes 1–8 (Quaracchi page-local numbering).
- **p. 188** (L→R): Dub. II Respondeo (L-col, tail spilling to top of R-col); Dub. III; Dub. IV. Footer carries footnotes 1–10 (page-local).

**Footer ownership / apparatus.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; this chunk claims only footnotes whose body anchors fall within its range (21303–21452). All notes on both pages are anchored within the dubia and are claimed here, renumbered continuously **[^1]–[^8]** (8 entries). Several physical Quaracchi entries were consolidated to follow the actual body anchors: the p.188 Scripture-citation footers (Ps. 103, Sap. 16, Matth. 28, Exod. 12 *phase*, Alex. Hal.) are gathered under [^8] since the Dub. II benefit-list and Dub. III viaticum bodies carry no separate inline markers in the OCR. No footnotes spill to neighbors.

**Pars II boundary confirmed.** Raw line **21453** begins `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII. / Pars II.` — the Pars II *divisio* (→ `d8-p2-divisio`), NOT d.9. Everything from L21453 on is excluded. The PDF running head on p.188 R confirms `DIST. VIII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I.`

**`[?]` flags.**
- **Dub. I [^1] anchor (Augustinus vs Innocent).** The OCR footer block for p.187 opens with footnote 1 = *Innocent. III, loc. cit. ... Praepositivus ... S. Thom.* (on the consecration opinions), which actually belongs to the *preceding* Conclusio article-text (a2-q2 / the Master-text), not to the Dub. I Respondeo. The Dub. I Respondeo's genuine reference is to **Augustine** ("Cibus sum grandium," *Confess.* VII.10.16), which the OCR carries lower in the p.187 footer as part of fn 8's block. I have anchored [^1] to the Augustine reference matching the body word *Augustinus*, and left the Innocent-III note to the Conclusio chunk (a2-q2). **Resolve when the d.8-p1 Conclusio/article chunk is built** — confirm the Innocent-III note lands there and is not double-claimed.
- **Dub. III / Dub. IV references.** The OCR splices the Chrysostom (`in Matth. 14,19`) and Tertullian (`adversus Marcion. c.40`, "Vide scholion") notes into the p.187 footer near these bodies, but those two pertain to the Conclusio's *Hoc est corpus meum* discussion, not to the dubia; they are intentionally **omitted here** as belonging to the neighboring article chunk. Dub. III's own viaticum apparatus (Exod. 12 *phase*; Alex. Hal.) is preserved in [^8].


title: Dist. 9

title_alt: Distinctio IX — textus Magistri Sententiarum

title_alt: Distinction IX — text of the Master of the Sentences

source_text:
<!-- page 199 -->

DISTINCTIO IX.

> The numbered footnotes below correspond to markers in both the Latin body above and the English translation. Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; here they are renumbered continuously. The page carries two apparatus systems — the upper *Notae* (critical notes) and the lower *Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum* (source references for Lombard's text); both are rendered.

### Cap. I. *De duobus manducandi modis.*

Et sicut duae sunt res illius Sacramenti, ita etiam duo modi manducandi: unus *sacramentalis*, scilicet quo boni et mali edunt; alter *spiritualis*, quo soli boni manducant[^1]. — Unde Augustinus: «Quid est Christum manducare? Non est hoc solum in Sacramento corpus eius accipere — multi enim indigne accipiunt — sed in ipso manere et habere ipsum in se manentem. Spiritualiter enim manducat qui in unitate Christi et Ecclesiae, quam Sacramentum significat, manet». «Nam qui discordat a Christo nec carnem Christi manducat nec sanguinem bibit, etsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudicium sui quotidie accipiat». Spiritualem manducationem Augustinus[^2] distinguens a sacramentali, ait: «Ut quid paras dentem et ventrem? Crede, et manducasti». «Credere enim in eum, hoc est manducare panem et vinum; qui credit in eum manducat eum». — Item: «Quomodo manducandus est Christus? Quo modo ipse dicit: *Qui manducat carnem meam et bibit sanguinem meum in me manet, et ego in eo*. Si in me manet, et ego in eo, tunc bibit; qui vero non in me manet, nec ego in illo, etsi accipit Sacramentum, acquirit magnum tormentum». Item[^3]: «Nulli ambigendum est, tunc quemque corporis sanguinisque Domini participem fieri, quando Christi membrum efficitur; nec alienari ab illius panis calicisque consortio, etiam si, antequam panem illum edat et calicem bibat, de hoc saeculo in unitate corporis Christi constitutus abscedat; quia illius Sacramenti beneficio non privatur, quando ille habere hoc quod illud Sacramentum significat, invenitur». In illo enim Sacramento corpus et sanguinem suum commendavit[^4] nobis, quod et fecit nos ipsos. Nam et nos corpus ipsius facti sumus. Item: «Qui discordat a Christo non manducat carnem eius nec sanguinem bibit, etsi tantae rei Sacramentum ad iudicium sibi quotidie accipit».

### Cap. II. *De errore illorum qui dicunt, tantum corpus Christi a bonis sumi.*

Haec verba et alia huiusmodi, ubi de spirituali manducatione agitur, quidam, obtuso corde legentes, erroris caligine involuti sunt, adeo ut dicere praesumserint, corpus et sanguinem Christi a bonis tantum sumi et non a malis. — Sed indubitanter tenendum est, a bonis sumi non modo sacramentaliter, sed et spiritualiter; a malis vero tantum sacramentaliter, id est sub Sacramento, scilicet sub specie visibili, carnem Christi de Virgine sumtam et sanguinem pro nobis fusum sumi, sed non mysticam, quae tantum bonorum est. Quod subditis probatur testimoniis. Gregorius[^5]: «Est quidem in peccatoribus et indigne sumentibus vera Christi caro et verus sanguis, sed essentia, non salubri efficientia». Item, Augustinus[^6]: «Multi indigne accipiunt corpus Domini, de quibus ait Apostolus: *Qui manducat et bibit calicem Domini*

<!-- page 200 -->

indigne iudicium sibi manducat et bibit». Per quod docemur, quam sit cavendum male accipere bonum. Ecce enim factum est malum, dum male accipitur, bonum; sicut econtra Apostolo factum est bonum, cum bene accipitur malum, scilicet dum stimulus satanae patienter portatur. Ergo et mala prosunt bonis, sicut angelus satanae Paulo; et sancta obsunt malis: bonis sunt ad salutem, malis ad iudicium. Unde qui manducat et bibit indigne iudicium sibi manducat et bibit, non quia res illa mala est, sed quia malus male accipit quod bonum est». Idem[^7]: «Indigne quis sumens corpus Christi non efficit, ut, quia malus est, malum sit quod accipit; vel quia non ad salutem accipit, nil accipiat. Corpus enim et sanguis Domini nihilominus erat in illis quibus ait Apostolus: *Qui manducat indigne*» etc. — His aliisque pluribus aperte ostenditur, quod etiam a malis verum corpus Christi et sanguis sumitur, sed sacramentaliter, non spiritualiter.

### Cap. III. *De intelligentia quorundam verborum ambiguorum.*

Secundum hos duos modos sumendi intelligentia quorundam verborum ambigue dictorum distinguenda est. Ait enim Augustinus[^8]: «Bonus accipit *Sacramentum* et *rem Sacramenti*; malus vero *Sacramentum* et non *rem*». *Sacramentum* hic dicit corpus Christi proprium, de Virgine natum; *rem* vero spiritualem Christi carnem. Bonus ergo utramque Christi carnem accipit, malus vero tantum *Sacramentum*, id est corpus Christi sub Sacramento, et non *rem spiritualem*. — Item[^9]: «Non manducans manducat, et manducans non manducat; quia non manducans *sacramentaliter* aliquando manducat *spiritualiter*», et e converso. Et qui manducant spiritualiter *veritatem* carnis et sanguinis dicuntur sumere, «quia ipsam efficientiam habent, id est remissionem peccatorum[^10]», pro qua videtur orari, cum dicitur: «Perficiant in nobis, Domine quaesumus, tua Sacramenta quod continent; ut quod nunc specie gerimus rerum veritate capiamus». *Rerum veritatem* dicit ipsam efficientiam, quasi: per haec Sacramenta praesta, ut sicut sacramentaliter carnem Christi sumimus, ita spiritualiter sumamus. Vel petit sacerdos, ut Christus, qui nunc sub specie panis et vini sumitur, manifesta visione, sicut in essentia divinitatis est, quandoque capiatur. — Constat igitur, a bonis et a malis sumi corpus Christi, sed a bonis ad salutem, a malis ad perniciem.

---

english:
<!-- page 199 -->

DISTINCTION IX.

### Chap. I. *On the two modes of eating.*

And just as the realities of that Sacrament are two, so also there are two modes of eating: one *sacramental*, namely by which both the good and the wicked eat; the other *spiritual*, by which the good alone eat[^1]. — Whence Augustine: «What is it to eat Christ? It is not only to receive his body in the Sacrament — for many receive it unworthily — but to abide in him and to have him abiding in oneself. For he eats spiritually who abides in the unity of Christ and of the Church, which the Sacrament signifies». «For he who is at variance with Christ neither eats the flesh of Christ nor drinks his blood, even though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a reality unto his own judgment». Distinguishing spiritual eating from the sacramental, Augustine[^2] says: «Why do you make ready your tooth and your belly? Believe, and you have eaten». «For to believe in him, this is to eat the bread and wine; he who believes in him eats him». — Likewise: «How is Christ to be eaten? In the manner he himself says: *He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him*. If he abides in me, and I in him, then he drinks; but he who does not abide in me, nor I in him, even though he receive the Sacrament, acquires a great torment». Likewise[^3]: «It is to be doubted by no one that anyone is made a partaker of the body and blood of the Lord at that moment when he is made a member of Christ; nor is he estranged from the fellowship of that bread and chalice, even if, before he eat that bread and drink the chalice, he depart from this world established in the unity of the body of Christ; because he is not deprived of the benefit of that Sacrament, when he is found to have that which that Sacrament signifies». For in that Sacrament he entrusted[^4] his body and blood to us, which he also made to be ourselves. For we too have been made his body. Likewise: «He who is at variance with Christ does not eat his flesh nor drink his blood, even though he daily receive the Sacrament of so great a reality unto his own judgment».

### Chap. II. *On the error of those who say that the body of Christ is taken by the good alone.*

These words and others of this kind, where spiritual eating is treated, certain men, reading with a dulled heart, have become enveloped in the darkness of error, to the point that they presumed to say that the body and blood of Christ are taken only by the good and not by the wicked. — But it is to be held without doubt that it is taken by the good not only sacramentally but also spiritually; whereas by the wicked it is taken only sacramentally, that is, under the Sacrament, namely under the visible species — the flesh of Christ taken from the Virgin and the blood poured out for us is taken, but not the mystical reality, which belongs to the good alone. This is proved by the testimonies subjoined. Gregory[^5]: «There is indeed in sinners and in those who receive unworthily the true flesh of Christ and the true blood, but in essence, not in salutary efficacy». Likewise, Augustine[^6]: «Many receive the body of the Lord unworthily, of whom the Apostle says: *He who eats and drinks the chalice of the Lord*

<!-- page 200 -->

unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself». By which we are taught how greatly one must beware of receiving the good thing badly. For behold, a good thing has been made an evil, when it is received badly; just as on the contrary an evil was made a good for the Apostle, when an evil is received well, namely when the sting of satan is patiently borne. Therefore both evils profit the good, as the angel of satan profited Paul; and holy things harm the wicked: to the good they are unto salvation, to the wicked unto judgment. Whence he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not because that reality is evil, but because the wicked man receives badly what is good». The same[^7]: «One who takes the body of Christ unworthily does not bring it about that, because he is evil, what he receives is evil; or that, because he does not receive it unto salvation, he receives nothing. For the body and blood of the Lord were nonetheless in those of whom the Apostle says: *He who eats unworthily*» etc. — By these and many other passages it is openly shown that even by the wicked the true body and blood of Christ is taken, but sacramentally, not spiritually.

### Chap. III. *On the understanding of certain ambiguous words.*

According to these two modes of taking, the understanding of certain ambiguously stated words must be distinguished. For Augustine[^8] says: «The good man receives the *Sacrament* and the *reality of the Sacrament*; but the wicked man the *Sacrament* and not the *reality*». By *Sacrament* he here means the proper body of Christ, born of the Virgin; by *reality* the spiritual flesh of Christ. The good man therefore receives both [aspects of] the flesh of Christ, but the wicked man only the *Sacrament*, that is, the body of Christ under the Sacrament, and not the *spiritual reality*. — Likewise[^9]: «He who does not eat eats, and he who eats does not eat; because he who does not eat *sacramentally* sometimes eats *spiritually*», and conversely. And those who eat spiritually are said to take the *truth* of the flesh and blood, «because they have its very efficacy, that is, the remission of sins[^10]», for which it seems prayer is made, when it is said: «May your Sacraments accomplish in us, we beseech you, O Lord, what they contain; that what we now perform in appearance we may receive in the truth of the realities». By *the truth of the realities* he means that very efficacy, as if [to say]: through these Sacraments grant that, just as we take the flesh of Christ sacramentally, so we may take it spiritually. Or the priest asks that Christ, who is now taken under the species of bread and wine, may at some time be grasped in manifest vision, as he is in the essence of the divinity. — It is established, therefore, that the body of Christ is taken both by the good and by the wicked, but by the good unto salvation, by the wicked unto destruction.

---

la: Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 20, apud Lyranum. (Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum, n. 1.) Subsequuntur loci Augusti.: primus Serm. 71. (alias 11. de Verbis Dom.) c. 11. n. 17; C. *Quid est Christum* (46.), de Consecrat. dist. 2; et alter libr. Sentent. Prosperi (inter opera August.) n. 341; C. *Qui discordat* (65.), ibid.

en: Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:20, in Lyra. The passages of Augustine follow: the first, Sermon 71 (formerly 11, *On the Words of the Lord*) c. 11, n. 17; canon *Quid est Christum* (46), *De Consecratione* dist. 2; and the other from the book of *Sentences* of Prosper (among the works of Augustine) n. 341; canon *Qui discordat* (65), ibid.

la: In Ioan. Evang. tr. 25. n. 12; C. *Ut quid paras* (47.), ibid.; seq. locus ibid. tr. 26. n. 1, et in can. eodem (August.: *panem vivum* pro *panem et vinum*); tertius locus ibid. n. 18; C. 46. supra cit., qui integre legitur apud Bedam in I. Cor. 11, 27, in quo loco citatur Ioan. 6, 57.

en: *On the Gospel of John*, tr. 25, n. 12; canon *Ut quid paras* (47), ibid.; the following passage ibid. tr. 26, n. 1, and in the same canon (Augustine: *living bread* for *bread and wine*); the third passage ibid. n. 18; canon 46 cited above, which is read in full in Bede on 1 Cor. 11:27, in which place John 6:57 is cited.

la: Beda in I. Cor. 10, 16; C. *Quia passus* (36.), ibid. § 1.

en: Bede on 1 Cor. 10:16; canon *Quia passus* (36), ibid. § 1.

la: August., in Sent. Prosperi, vide supra nota 1; in quo textu plures codd. et edd. omittunt *bibit*. — In eodem loco bis relato et edd. et codd. has habent lectiones variantes: *sui* pro *sibi* (apud Prosp. *suae praesumtionis*), nec non *accipiat* pro *accipit* (in paucis edd. *accepit*).

en: Augustine, in the *Sentences* of Prosper, see note 1 above; in which text several codices and editions omit *drink*. — In the same passage, twice related, both editions and codices have these variant readings: *sui* for *sibi* (in Prosper, *of his own presumption*), and also *accipiat* for *accipit* (in a few editions *accepit*).

la: Locus non est Gregorii, sed Lanfranci, de Corpore et sang. Dom. c. 20.

en: The passage is not Gregory's, but Lanfranc's, *On the Body and Blood of the Lord* c. 20.

la: Collectus est ex tr. 6. in Ioan. Evang. n. 15. et tr. 62. n. 1; C. *Et sancta* (66.), ibid.; ubi citatur I. Cor. 11, 29.

en: It is gathered from tr. 6 *On the Gospel of John* n. 15 and tr. 62 n. 1; canon *Et sancta* (66), ibid.; where 1 Cor. 11:29 is cited.

la: Augustinus, ex eodem fonte; cfr. supra. (In textu Magistri sequitur citatio Apostoli *Qui manducat indigne*, I. Cor. 11, 29.)

en: Augustine, from the same source; cf. above. (In the Master's text there follows the citation of the Apostle, *He who eats unworthily*, 1 Cor. 11:29.)

la: Augustinus, locus de spiritualibus *Sacramento* et *re Sacramenti*; cfr. supra cit. canones de Consecrat. dist. 2.

en: Augustine, the passage concerning the *Sacrament* and the *reality of the Sacrament*; cf. the canons cited above, *De Consecratione* dist. 2.

la: Item, ex eadem doctrina de manducatione sacramentali et spirituali distincta; cfr. Cap. I supra.

en: Likewise, from the same teaching distinguishing sacramental from spiritual eating; cf. Chap. I above.

la: Oratio (Postcommunio) «Perficiant in nobis», ex Sacramentariis; *rerum veritate* pro efficacia, scilicet remissione peccatorum.

en: The prayer (Postcommunion) «May they accomplish in us», from the Sacramentaries; *in the truth of the realities*, [taken] for the efficacy, namely the remission of sins. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column bands for printed pp. 199–200 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{199,200}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the IA djvu OCR (raw lines 22542–22657) as the running-prose base. Two-column Vol IV page; reflow Left-then-Right per page. Offset pdf = printed + 20 (pp. 219–220).

**Chapter list (Lombard's divisions).** Cap. I *De duobus manducandi modis*; Cap. II *De errore illorum qui dicunt, tantum corpus Christi a bonis sumi*; Cap. III *De intelligentia quorundam verborum ambiguorum*. The distinction has a SINGLE pars (no pars label in the id).

**Page-split map.** p.199 holds DISTINCTIO IX heading, all of Cap. I, all of Cap. II up to «*Qui manducat et bibit calicem Domini*»; the sentence completes on p.200 («*indigne iudicium sibi manducat et bibit*»). p.200 holds the remainder of Cap. II, all of Cap. III, ending «a malis ad perniciem», immediately before COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX (= the d9-divisio chunk, excluded).

**Footer-ownership.**
- p.199 left column carries d.8's *Dub. II* tail and Cap. I opening; its footer block (upper *Notae* nn. 1–5 + the *Notae ad Libr. Sententiarum* sub-block) supplies the littera source citations rendered here as [^1]–[^3] / [^5]–[^6]. The Beda note and Glossa/Prosper notes belong to THIS littera body.
- p.199 right column footers (nn. 2–6) continue the same littera apparatus (the Augustine/John and Lanfranc citations) and are folded into [^2], [^4], [^5], [^6].
- p.200 left column footers (nn. 1–3, beginning «Libr. V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas») belong to the **COMMENTARIUS / d9-divisio**, NOT the littera — EXCLUDED here.
- p.200 right column footers (n. 4 «Apud Lanfranc.» + the «NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM» n. 1 «Non pauci codd. omittunt *qui manducatur*») also belong to the **d9-divisio/commentarius** — EXCLUDED here. The littera body on p.200 (Cap. II tail + Cap. III) carries no upper-*Notae* markers of its own; its citations [^7]–[^10] are continuations of Augustine/the Postcommunion already keyed on p.199's apparatus and are supplied editorially from the cited sources.

**Neighbor footers seen but excluded.** The d.8 *Dub. II / Respondeo* footer (raw context above L22542) and all p.200 COMMENTARIUS footers (left col nn.1–3, right col n.4 + NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM n.1) belong to neighboring chunks (d.8 littera/dubia and d9-divisio respectively).

**[?] flags.** None. All readings resolved against the PDF bands; the Quaracchi apparatus for the littera was reconstructed continuously from the page-restarted footers ([^7]–[^10] are editorially keyed to the named sources, marked in the per-entry notes).


title: Dist. 9, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem IX — Divisio textus et Tractatio quaestionum

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction IX — Division of the text and Treatment of the questions

source_text:
<!-- page 200 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM IX.

### *De Sacramento eucharistiae respectu suscipientium.*

*Et sicut duae sunt res illius Sacramenti* etc.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de Sacramento eucharistiae in se; hic incipit agere per comparationem ad manducantem. Et quoniam circa manducationem eucharistiae dupliciter fuit erratum, et quantum ad manducantem et quantum ad cibum, qui manducatur[^1], ideo haec pars habet duas partes. In prima Magister excludit errorem quantum ad manducantes, quia dixerunt aliqui, malos non manducare verum corpus Christi. In secunda excludit errorem quantum ad cibum, quia dixerunt alii, quod a nullis sumitur verum corpus Christi, et hoc facit in distinctione decima: *Sunt item alii praecedentium insaniam* etc.

Prima pars habet tres partes secundum tria capitula. In prima parte Magister dicit veritatem. In secunda manifestat mentientes, ibi: *Haec verba et alia huiusmodi.* In tertia dissolvit ex his locutiones multiplices, ibi: *Secundum hos duos modos sumendi* etc.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam eorum quae Magister determinat in praesenti distinctione, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de manducatione in generali.

Secundo, in speciali per comparationem ad malos.

Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor.

Primo quaeritur de modis manducandi, quos ponit Magister, duos scilicet, sacramentalem et spiritualem.

<!-- page 201 -->

Secundo, quid sit manducare spiritualiter, sive pro quanto dicatur quis manducare spiritualiter.

Tertio, quid sit manducare sacramentaliter, sive pro quanto quis dicatur manducare sacramentaliter.

Quarto, utrum Christus manducaverit utroque modo.

---

english:
<!-- page 200 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION IX.

### *On the Sacrament of the eucharist with respect to those receiving it.*

*And as there are two realities of that Sacrament,* etc.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the Sacrament of the eucharist in itself; here he begins to treat of it by comparison to the one who eats. And since concerning the eating of the eucharist error was twofold — both as regards the one who eats and as regards the food which is eaten[^1] — therefore this part has two parts. In the first the Master excludes the error as regards those who eat, because some said that the wicked do not eat the true body of Christ. In the second he excludes the error as regards the food, because others said that the true body of Christ is received by none, and he does this in the tenth distinction: *There are likewise others* [who follow] *the madness of those preceding,* etc.

The first part has three parts according to three chapters. In the first part the Master states the truth. In the second he exposes those who lie, there: *These words and others of this kind.* In the third he resolves from these the manifold ways of speaking, there: *According to these two modes of receiving,* etc.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of those things which the Master determines in the present distinction, two matters are principally inquired into.

First, it is asked about eating in general.

Second, in particular, by comparison to the wicked.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First, it is asked about the modes of eating which the Master sets down, namely two, the sacramental and the spiritual.

<!-- page 201 -->

Second, what it is to eat spiritually, or for what reason one is said to eat spiritually.

Third, what it is to eat sacramentally, or for what reason one is said to eat sacramentally.

Fourth, whether Christ ate in both modes.

---

la: Non pauci codd. omittunt *qui manducatur.*

en: Not a few codices omit *which is eaten.* ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Internet Archive djvu OCR (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 22662–22722), collated column-by-column against the 450 dpi PDF column bands for printed pp.200–201 (pdf pp.220–221, offset +20), reading Left column top→bottom then Right column. Vol IV is two-column and the OCR cascade-fragments the COMMENTARIUS / DIVISIO / TRACTATIO region, so the PDF bands are authoritative for reflow (Vol II/IV PDF-priority override). Fresh literal English translation. This is a SINGLE-PARS distinction → the id carries no pars label.

**Structure confirmed from the TRACTATIO.** Distinction IX has **2 articles**: ART. I *De manducatione eucharistiae in generali* (the principal head "Primo quaeritur de manducatione in generali") with **4 questions** — (q1) *de modis manducandi*, (q2) *quid sit manducare spiritualiter*, (q3) *quid sit manducare sacramentaliter*, (q4) *utrum Christus manducaverit utroque modo* — and ART. II *De manducatione in speciali per comparationem ad malos* (the head "Secundo, in speciali per comparationem ad malos") which likewise carries **4 questions**, listed at ART. II's own opener further on, not re-enumerated in this divisio. The clause "Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor" therefore enumerates only ART. I's four questions. Confirms the briefed **ART I 4q + ART II 4q** plan.

**Page-split map.** The COMMENTARIUS opener and the DIVISIO TEXTUS sit in the **right column of printed p.200** (the left column of p.200 holds the tail of the prior chunk — the d.9 *littera*, Dubium 6 / Cap. III and the "Constat igitur, a bonis et a malis sumi corpus Christi" close). The TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM begins at the foot of p.200 (right column: "Ad intelligentiam… duo principaliter quaeruntur… Primo… Secundo… Circa primum quaeruntur quatuor. Primo… de modis manducandi, quos…") and continues at the **left column of p.201** ("ponit Magister… Secundo, quid sit manducare spiritualiter… Tertio… Quarto, utrum Christus manducaverit utroque modo"). The `<!-- page 201 -->` marker is placed at the q1/q2-listing seam ("ponit Magister… / Secundo, quid sit manducare spiritualiter").

**Footer ownership (why has_apparatus: true with one note).** Printed p.200's main numbered footers anchor to the **littera** in the left column above (the prior chunk), not to this divisio:
- `¹ Libr. V. de Baptismo contra Donatistas, c. 8, n. 9; C. Sicut Iudas (68.), ibid.` → littera (Augustinus *De baptismo*).
- `² Ex locis citt. collectus; verbotenus in Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 24, apud Lyranum. — Inferius pro natum codd. et ed. 1 …`, `³ In Glossa cit.`, and `⁴ Apud Lanfranc., ut supra, et C. Species et similitudo (34.), ibid. Seq. Oratio habetur in Gregorii Libr. Sacrament. n. 487; cfr. Guitmund., II. de Corporis et sang. Dom. veritate.` → all littera / Cap.-III anchors above.

The **NOTAE AD COMMENTARIUM** block on p.200 (right-column foot) has one entry, `¹ Non pauci codd. omittunt qui manducatur`, which anchors **exactly** to the divisio body phrase *qui manducatur* ("…et quantum ad cibum, qui manducatur"). That one note is claimed here as `[^1]`. No other footer in raw L22662–22722 anchors to a divisio word.

**Footers left to d9-a1-q1.** None of p.200/201's numbered footers belong to ART. I, QUAESTIO I — its apparatus begins with its own page footer sequence at raw L22723+ (the QUAESTIO I "De duplici modo manducandi eucharistiam" body, opening "Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic… 1. Primo auctoritate canonis, Ioannis sexto" with its *Qui manducat me vivit propter me* Fundamentum footer). That chunk owns all footers from L22723 onward.

**[?] flags.** None. The single ambiguous OCR garble ("manducatur '" with a trailing superscript marker) was resolved against the PDF band and the NOTAE entry, which together confirm the marker anchors *qui manducatur*; the *Sunt item alii praecedentium insaniam* / *Secundum hos duos modos sumendi* cross-reference incipits are confirmed clean from the p.200 R bands.