title: Dist. 7, Dubia

title_alt: Dubia circa litteram Magistri (Dist. VII)

title_alt: Doubts concerning the text of the Master (Dist. VII)

source_text:
<!-- page 175 -->

### Dub. I

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit Magister, quod pro scandalo semel tantum concessisse aestimatur[^1][^2].

Videtur enim non fuisse recta talis concessio, quia scandalum de veritate vitae vel doctrinae nihil immutat[^7]; si ergo solus episcopus potest confirmare, videtur, quod propter scandalum non debuit illud permittere.

<!-- page 176 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod quamvis sacerdos non possit propria auctoritate, tamen pro causa necessaria summus Pontifex, in quo est plenitudo potestatis, potest alii quam episcopo[^p176-1] committere; et ille non facit auctoritate sua, sed auctoritate sibi commissa, unde ille potius facit, cuius auctoritate fit: unde non est dubium, quin pontificalis auctoritas sit de necessitate huius Sacramenti. — Aliqui tamen dicunt, quod non concessit eis conferre Sacramentum, sed solum aliquod sacramentale, sicut aliquando datur laicis panis benedictus loco corporis dominici[^p176-2].

### Dub. II

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod *virtus huius Sacramenti est donatio Spiritus sancti ad robur;* quia, si hoc verum est, *contra* hoc est, quia eucharistia confirmat, unde in Psalmo[^p176-3]: *Panis cor hominis confirmat.*

**Respondeo:** Ad hoc multipliciter respondetur. Primo modo sic, quod istud Sacramentum ordinatur ad robur *per se,* sed eucharistia *per accidens*[^p176-4]; sed hoc non solvit, quia, sive per se sive per accidens, dum tamen habeant effectum eundem, videtur, alterum superfluere. — Secundus modus dicendi est, quod confirmatio confirmat *contra malum,* sed eucharistia *in bono.* Sed nec illud sufficit, quia omne Sacramentum, cum sit remedium, est contra malum, et ita eucharistia. — Alii dicunt, quod duo sunt nobis necessaria, scilicet *fides* et *mores;* et unum confirmat in *fide,* scilicet confirmatio, sed eucharistia quantum ad bonos *mores;* quia, ut dicit Bernardus[^p176-5], eucharistia non solum delet venialia, sed etiam consensum fortificat, ne inclinetur ad mortalia. — Alii dicunt, quod utrumque fortificat fidem; sed duo necessaria sunt ad fidem firmam, scilicet *corde credere et ore confiteri*[^p176-6]; et eucharistia confirmat quantum ad *fidem in corde,* sed confirmatio quantum ad *confessionem* sive prolationem in ore. — Alii dicunt, quod utrumque fortificat caritatem, quia ab eius fortitudine pendet fortitudo omnium. Sed caritas potest deficere dupliciter, scilicet per defectum alimenti, vel per actionem contrarii, sicut patet in igne materiali[^p176-7]; et contra primum est eucharistia, quae cibat; contra secundum confirmatio, ut impugnantibus resistat. — Alii dicunt aliter et probabilius, quod confirmatio est ad corroborationem *fidei,* sed eucharistia *caritatis;* et hoc patet, quia hic est signum confessionis fidelis, ibi signum unionis. — Et si quaeratur: quare magis confirmantur hae duae virtutes quam aliae? dicendum, quod quia in his duabus pendet fortitudo spiritualis aedificii[^p176-8] quantum ad intellectum et affectum; et quia in *fide* est prima elevatio, in *caritate* elevatio summa, et utrobique difficultas; et quia pronitas est ad contrarium: ideo magis confirmantur[^p176-9].

### Dub. III

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Rabanus[^p176-10], quod hoc Sacramentum maiori veneratione tenendum est, sicut a maioribus datur. Videtur enim secundum hoc, quod amplior gratia in eo datur.

**Respondeo:** Et dicendum, quod communiter dici consuevit, quod unum Sacramentum dicitur maius alio quinque modis. Primo modo propter *significationem;* sic matrimonium dicitur maius, quia significat unitatem naturarum in Christo[^p176-11]. Secundo modo propter *continentiam;* et sic eucharistia dicitur maius. Tertio, propter *efficaciam;* et sic baptismus. Quarto, propter *dignitatem ministrantium* sive dispensantium; et sic dicitur confirmatio maior, quia datur a summis sacerdotibus sive episcopis[^p176-12]. Quinto, propter hoc, quod *ponit in nobiliori gradu;* et sic dicitur ordo maius Sacramentum.

### Dub. IV

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *In digniori parte corporis fit.* Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia vertex est dignior quantum ad *situm,* et cor quantum ad *virtutem:* ergo potius debet dari in *capite,* vel in *corde.* — Item, videtur, quod in *lingua,* quia ibi est confessio.

<!-- page 177 -->

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod pars dignior quantum ad virtutem et operationem est cor, sed tamen occulta est et latet interius[^p177-1]. Inter partes vero, quae se offerunt sensibus nostris, caput est dignius, et in capite facies, scilicet anterior pars: et ideo hoc Sacramentum datur in facie, sed magis in fronte, quia ibi est sedes verecundiae[^p177-2]. Unde quia hoc Sacramentum est contra confusionem et verecundiam confitendi nomen Christi, quae linguam contrahit, ne aperte dicat, debet hoc Sacramentum in fronte dari. Frons quidem pars est faciei eminentior. Unde dixerunt quidam, quod in nova lege fit prima unctio in *capite* ratione virtutis, secunda vero in *fronte,* tertia iterum in *capite.* Et prima fit in baptismo; secunda vero in confirmatione; tertia vero in episcopi consecratione[^p177-3]. — Et prima signata est in prima unctione David, primi Regum decimo sexto[^p177-4]; secunda vero in unctione David super duas tribus, secundi Regum secundo; tertia vero in unctione David super cunctum regnum, secundi Regum quinto. Et satis possunt aptari istis, si quis inspiciat. In prima enim David non habuit potentiam; in secunda habuit potentiam et resistentiam; in tertia habuit potentiam et praesidentiam super gentem suam[^p177-5].

### Dub. V

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: *Hoc Sacramentum tantum a ieiunis et ieiunis*[^p177-6] *tradi debet.* Videtur enim, quod quia est ad robur, quod cibus non impediat: cibus enim corporalis non repugnat fortitudini spirituali.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod in hoc Sacramento datur gratia, et gratia corroborans; et iterum, contrahitur affinitas quaedam. Ideo ista tria statuta fuerunt[^p177-7] ab antiquis Patribus in Sacramento servari tanquam congrua: ut ieiuno stomacho propter gratiam Spiritus sancti suscipiendam; ut confirmandus ab alio portetur vel teneatur, qui sit confirmatus, in signum debilitatis et imbecillitatis; ut sit consimilis sexus propter periculum affinitatis[^p177-8].

### Dub. VI

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod nec debet iterari, sicut nec baptismus. Videtur enim quod possit iterari, quia morbus pusillanimitatis potest iterari, contra quem est: ergo et Sacramentum. *Si tu dicas,* quod non potest propter characterem; tunc videtur, quod character praeiudicet morbo: si ergo non est curatio morbi propter characterem, sed magis e converso, patet etc.

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod illud Sacramentum non potest iterari propter *characterem,* qui imprimitur in eo indelebiliter. Non debet etiam tum ratione *morbi,* quem curat, tum ratione *effectus,* quem donat, tum ratione *rei,* quam allegorice significat. Ratione *morbi,* quia est poena contracta; haec autem, secundum quod huiusmodi, non iteratur, sed si iteratur, hoc est solum, secundum quod acta[^p177-9]. Ratione *effectus,* quem donat, qui est plenitudo gratiae ad robur; et quia integer effectus, ideo status. Ratione *rei,* quam allegorice significat, quia significat adventum Spiritus sancti de caelo in Apostolos in die Pentecostes[^p177-10], qui postquam advenit, nunquam ab eis discessit. Et sic patet illud.

english:
<!-- page 175 -->

### Doubt I

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is doubted about this which the Master says, that he is reckoned to have granted it only once on account of scandal[^1][^2].

For such a concession seems not to have been right, because scandal changes nothing of the truth of life or of doctrine[^7]; if therefore the bishop alone can confirm, it seems that he ought not to have permitted that on account of scandal.

<!-- page 176 -->

**I respond:** It must be said that although a priest cannot [confirm] by his own authority, yet for a necessary cause the supreme Pontiff, in whom is the fulness of power, can commit it to another than a bishop[^p176-1]; and that man does not act by his own authority, but by an authority committed to him, whence he rather acts by whose authority it is done: hence there is no doubt that pontifical authority belongs to the necessity of this Sacrament. — Yet some say that he did not grant them to confer the Sacrament, but only some sacramental, just as sometimes blessed bread is given to the laity in place of the Lord's body[^p176-2].

### Doubt II

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that *the power of this Sacrament is the gift of the Holy Spirit unto strength;* because, if this is true, *against* this it is, that the eucharist confirms, whence in the Psalm[^p176-3]: *Bread strengthens the heart of man.*

**I respond:** To this it is answered in many ways. In the first way thus, that this Sacrament is ordained unto strength *of itself,* but the eucharist *accidentally*[^p176-4]; but this does not solve it, because, whether of itself or accidentally, so long as they have the same effect, one seems to be superfluous. — The second way of speaking is that confirmation confirms *against evil,* but the eucharist *in good.* But neither does that suffice, because every Sacrament, since it is a remedy, is against evil, and so [is] the eucharist. — Others say that two things are necessary for us, namely *faith* and *morals;* and one confirms in *faith,* namely confirmation, but the eucharist as to good *morals;* because, as Bernard says[^p176-5], the eucharist not only blots out venial [sins], but also strengthens consent, lest it be inclined toward mortal [sins]. — Others say that both strengthen faith; but two things are necessary for a firm faith, namely *to believe with the heart and to confess with the mouth*[^p176-6]; and the eucharist confirms as to *faith in the heart,* but confirmation as to *confession* or utterance with the mouth. — Others say that both strengthen charity, because on its strength depends the strength of all. But charity can fail in two ways, namely through defect of nourishment, or through the action of a contrary, as is plain in a material fire[^p176-7]; and against the first is the eucharist, which feeds; against the second confirmation, that it may resist attackers. — Others say otherwise and more probably, that confirmation is for the strengthening *of faith,* but the eucharist *of charity;* and this is plain, because here is the sign of a believer's confession, there the sign of union. — And if it be asked: why are these two virtues confirmed rather than others? it must be said that [it is] because on these two depends the strength of the spiritual edifice[^p176-8] as to intellect and affection; and because in *faith* is the first elevation, in *charity* the highest elevation, and in both [there is] difficulty; and because there is a proneness to the contrary: therefore they are confirmed the more[^p176-9].

### Doubt III

Likewise it is asked about this which Rabanus says[^p176-10], that this Sacrament is to be held in greater veneration, as it is given by greater [ministers]. For according to this it seems that a fuller grace is given in it.

**I respond:** And it must be said that it is commonly wont to be said that one Sacrament is called greater than another in five ways. In the first way on account of *signification;* thus matrimony is called greater, because it signifies the union of the natures in Christ[^p176-11]. In the second way on account of *containment;* and thus the eucharist is called greater. Third, on account of *efficacy;* and thus baptism. Fourth, on account of the *dignity of those ministering* or dispensing; and thus confirmation is called greater, because it is given by the highest priests or bishops[^p176-12]. Fifth, on account of this, that it *places in a nobler grade;* and thus order is called the greater Sacrament.

### Doubt IV

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *It is done on the worthier part of the body.* For it seems false to say so, because the crown of the head is worthier as to *position,* and the heart as to *power:* therefore it ought rather to be given on the *head,* or on the *heart.* — Likewise, it seems [it should be] on the *tongue,* because there is confession.

<!-- page 177 -->

**I respond:** It must be said that the part worthier as to power and operation is the heart, but yet it is hidden and lies within[^p177-1]. But among the parts which offer themselves to our senses, the head is worthier, and in the head the face, namely the front part: and therefore this Sacrament is given on the face, but rather on the forehead, because there is the seat of shame[^p177-2]. Hence, because this Sacrament is against the confusion and shame of confessing the name of Christ, which contracts the tongue, lest one speak openly, this Sacrament ought to be given on the forehead. The forehead indeed is the more eminent part of the face. Hence some have said that in the new law the first anointing is made on the *head* by reason of power, the second on the *forehead,* the third again on the *head.* And the first is made in baptism; the second in confirmation; the third in the consecration of a bishop[^p177-3]. — And the first was signified in the first anointing of David, in the sixteenth [chapter] of the first [book] of Kings[^p177-4]; the second in the anointing of David over the two tribes, in the second [chapter] of the second [book] of Kings; the third in the anointing of David over the whole kingdom, in the fifth [chapter] of the second [book] of Kings. And they can well enough be fitted to these, if one looks. For in the first David did not have power; in the second he had power and resistance; in the third he had power and presidency over his people[^p177-5].

### Doubt V

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: *This Sacrament ought to be delivered only by those fasting and to those fasting*[^p177-6]. For it seems that, because it is unto strength, food should not impede it: for bodily food is not repugnant to spiritual strength.

**I respond:** It must be said that in this Sacrament grace is given, and a strengthening grace; and again, a certain affinity is contracted. Therefore these three things were established[^p177-7] by the ancient Fathers to be observed in the Sacrament as fitting: that [it be received] on a fasting stomach, on account of the grace of the Holy Spirit to be received; that the one to be confirmed be carried or held by another who is [already] confirmed, in sign of weakness and feebleness; that he be of the like sex, on account of the danger of affinity[^p177-8].

### Doubt VI

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that neither ought it to be repeated, just as neither [is] baptism. For it seems that it can be repeated, because the sickness of faint-heartedness, against which it is, can be repeated: therefore [so can] the Sacrament also. *If you say* that it cannot, on account of the character; then it seems that the character prejudices the sickness: if therefore there is no cure of the sickness on account of the character, but rather the contrary, it is plain etc.

**I respond:** It must be said that that Sacrament cannot be repeated on account of the *character,* which is imprinted in it indelibly. Nor ought it [to be repeated], whether by reason of the *sickness* which it cures, or by reason of the *effect* which it gives, or by reason of the *thing* which it allegorically signifies. By reason of the *sickness,* because it is a contracted penalty; and this, as such, is not repeated, but if it is repeated, this is only insofar as it is acted[^p177-9]. By reason of the *effect* which it gives, which is the fulness of grace unto strength; and because the effect is whole, therefore [it is] a settled state. By reason of the *thing* which it allegorically signifies, because it signifies the coming of the Holy Spirit from heaven into the Apostles on the day of Pentecost[^p177-10], who, after he came, never departed from them. And thus that is plain.

la: Cap. *Si quis presbyter,* (1.), X. (lib. III. tit. 43.) de presbytero non baptizato: *Si quis presbyter ordinatus deprehenderit, se non esse baptizatum: baptizetur et iterum ordinetur.* — De *minori* vide infra d. 24. p. II. a. 1. q. 1. et d. 25. a. 1. q. 2.

en: Chapter *Si quis presbyter,* (1.), X. (book III, tit. 43) on the unbaptized priest: *If an ordained priest shall discover that he is not baptized: let him be baptized and ordained again.* — On the *lesser* [order] see below, d. 24, p. II, a. 1, q. 1, and d. 25, a. 1, q. 2.

en: Compare canon *Sollicitudo* (1.), d. 52, where Alexander II teaches that he who, the order of subdiaconate having been omitted, has ascended to a greater order, should abstain from the greater [orders] until at a fitting time he receives what was omitted.

la: Cfr. supra pag. 86, nota 6, in fine.

en: Compare above, page 86, note 6, at the end.

la: Cod. Z addit *sed non inferiori quam presbytero.* Inferius pro *sua* codd. F G I *propria.*

en: Codex Z adds *sed non inferiori quam presbytero* (but not to one inferior to a priest). Below, for *sua* codices F G I read *propria.*

la: Vide supra a. 1. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 5. a. 1. § 3; B. Albert., hic a. 4. quaestiunc. 3; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 1. quaestiunc. 2. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. 1. ad 1.

en: See above, a. 1, q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 5, a. 1, § 3; Albert the Great, here a. 4, little-question 3; Thomas, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 1, little-question 2 and on the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2, q. 1, to 1.

la: Cfr. Guliel. Altissiod., S. p. IV. tr. 1. c. 1.

en: Compare William of Auxerre, *Summa,* p. IV, tr. 1, c. 1.

la: Serm. in Coena Domini, n. 3: *Duo enim illud Sacramentum* [eucharistia] *operatur in nobis, ut videlicet et sensum minuat in minimis et in gravioribus peccatis tollat omnino consensum.* Cfr. infra d. 12. p. II. a. 1. q. 3.

en: *Sermon on the Lord's Supper,* n. 3: *For that Sacrament* [the eucharist] *works two things in us, namely that it both lessens the feeling in the least [sins] and altogether removes consent in the graver sins.* Compare below, d. 12, p. II, a. 1, q. 3.

la: Rom. 10, 10: *Corde enim creditur ad iustitiam, ore autem confessio fit ad salutem.* — Pro *firmam* cod. W *firmandam.* Inferius post *prolationem* cod. K supplet *verborum.*

en: Romans 10, 10: *For with the heart one believes unto justice, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.* — For *firmam* codex W reads *firmandam.* Below, after *prolationem* codex K supplies *verborum.*

la: Hoc docet Aristot., de Iuventute et senect. etc. c. 3. (c. 5.) cfr. de Longitud. et brevit. vitae, c. 2. (c. 3.).

en: Aristotle teaches this, *On Youth and Old Age* etc., c. 3 (c. 5); compare *On Length and Shortness of Life,* c. 2 (c. 3).

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 604, nota 9. — Post *quod* codd. F G I omittunt *quia.*

en: Compare tom. III, page 604, note 9. — After *quod* codices F G I omit *quia.*

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 3. a. 2. § 2; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 3, a. 2, § 2; Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Mediavilla, here on the text.

la: Ita quidem codd., sed edd., omisso *Rabanus,* infra post *secundum hoc* addunt *verba Melchiadis cui attribuitur* canon supra pag. 162, nota 1. citatus.

en: So indeed the codices, but the editions, *Rabanus* having been omitted, add below after *secundum hoc* *the words of Melchiades, to whom is attributed* the canon cited above, page 162, note 1.

la: Vide III. Sent. d. 6. a. 2. q. 2. Cfr. etiam infra d. 26. a. 2. q. 1. — De eucharistia vide dist. seq. dub. 2; de efficacia baptismi cfr. supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. seq.

en: See III *Sentences,* d. 6, a. 2, q. 2. Compare also below, d. 26, a. 2, q. 1. — On the eucharist see the following distinction, dub. 2; on the efficacy of baptism compare above, d. 4, p. I, a. 1, q. 1 ff.

la: Cfr. supra a. 1. q. 3. et a. 2. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 4. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 6; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 1. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3.

en: Compare above, a. 1, q. 3, and a. 2, q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 4, a. 3; Albert the Great, here a. 6; Thomas, here q. 1, a. 1, little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 2, a. 2, little-question 3.

la: Cfr. tom. III. pag. 289, nota 1. et pag. 290, nota 1. 2.

en: Compare tom. III, page 289, note 1, and page 290, notes 1, 2.

la: Secundum Glossam *ordinariam* in Rom. 10, 10, apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum.

en: According to the *Ordinary Gloss* on Romans 10, 10, in Peter Lombard and Lyra.

la: Vide Innocentii III. C. *Cum venisset* X. (libr. 1. tit. 15.), de sacra unctione.

en: See Innocent III, canon *Cum venisset* X. (book 1, tit. 15), on sacred anointing.

la: Vers. 13. — Secundus locus est II. Reg. 2, 4, ubi Vulgata, quam sequitur Vat. et cod. I, *super domum Iuda* pro *super duas tribus;* tertius est ibid. 5, 3.

en: Verse 13. — The second place is II Kings 2, 4, where the Vulgate, which the Vatican edition and codex I follow, [reads] *super domum Iuda* (over the house of Judah) for *super duas tribus* (over the two tribes); the third is the same place, 5, 3.

la: Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 5. a. 6; B. Albert., hic a. 7; S. Thom., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 2.

en: The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 5, a. 6; Albert the Great, here a. 7; Thomas, here q. 3, a. 3, little-question 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3, little-question 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6, q. 2.

la: Cfr. C. *Ut ieiuni* (6.) et C. *Ut episcopi non nisi ieiuni* (7.), de Consecrat. d. 5, ubi praecipitur, quod confirmandi sint ieiuni, et quod « traditionem Spiritus sancti a ieiunis Pontificibus convenit celebrari ».

en: Compare canon *Ut ieiuni* (6.) and canon *Ut episcopi non nisi ieiuni* (7.), *On Consecration,* d. 5, where it is prescribed that those to be confirmed should be fasting, and that « it is fitting that the handing-on of the Holy Spirit be celebrated by fasting Pontiffs ».

la: Vat. *consuecerunt.* Subinde pro *Patribus* cod. S *possunt.* Inferius pro *confirmatus* codd. F U *confirmando.*

en: The Vatican edition [reads] *consuecerunt.* Then for *Patribus* codex S [reads] *possunt.* Below, for *confirmatus* codices F U [read] *confirmando.*

la: Vide infra d. 42. a. 1. q. 1. — De ipso dubio cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 5. a. 5. § 1. ad ult.; B. Albert., hic a. 8; S. Thom., hic circa lit.

en: See below, d. 42, a. 1, q. 1. — On the doubt itself compare Alexander of Hales, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 5, a. 5, § 1, to the last; Albert the Great, here a. 8; Thomas, here on the text.

la: De poena *contracta* et *acta* cfr. tom. II. pag. 826, nota 4. Permulti codd. perperam *aucta,* cod. M *ducta vel acta.* — Idem dicit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 9. m. 5. a. 7. § 1. — De ratione vide verba Rabani allegata hic in lit. Magistri, c. 4.

en: On *contracted* and *acted* penalty compare tom. II, page 826, note 4. Very many codices wrongly [read] *aucta,* codex M *ducta vel acta.* — Alexander of Hales says the same, *Summa,* p. IV, q. 9, m. 5, a. 7, § 1. — On the reason see the words of Rabanus cited here in the text of the Master, c. 4.

la: Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Praeter Alex. Hal. loc. cit. cfr. de hoc dubio B. Albert., hic a. 9; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. quaestiunc. 2; Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 1.

en: Compare above, a. 2, q. 1 ff. — Besides Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., compare on this doubt Albert the Great, here a. 9; Thomas, here q. 2, a. 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3, a. 3, little-question 2; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6, q. 1.

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the Vol IV PDF column bands for printed pp.175–177 (PDF pp.195–197, offset pdf = printed + 20), cross-checked against raw OCR lines 20059–20257 of `raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`. Two-column page; per the VOL II OVERRIDE the column-band PDF reads are authoritative wherever the IA djvu OCR cascade-shatters (every Respondeo and footer here is diagonally fragmented and the two columns bleed together in the raw). Read order each page: left column top→bottom, then right column; body bands then footer bands. The "DUBIA CIRCA LITTERAM MAGISTRI" header sits at the bottom of p.175's left column; Article III, q. 3 (the preceding chunk) occupies the top of both columns of p.175.

**Dubia enumerated — six (DUB. I–VI), single pars (no pars label):**
- **Dub. I** — whether the Master was right that confirmation by a priest was conceded only once, for scandal (*solus episcopus potest confirmare*); resolved: papal authority can commit it for necessary cause.
- **Dub. II** — if confirmation's power is the Spirit's gift unto strength, how does the eucharist also "strengthen" (Ps. 103)? — six opinions; *probabilior:* confirmation strengthens *faith,* eucharist *charity.*
- **Dub. III** — Rabanus: this Sacrament held in greater veneration as given by greater [ministers]; the five senses in which one Sacrament is called "greater" than another.
- **Dub. IV** — why confirmation "on the worthier part" is given on the forehead rather than heart/head/tongue; the three anointings figured in David.
- **Dub. V** — why the Sacrament must be given/received fasting (*a ieiunis et ieiunis*); the three fitting observances (fasting stomach, sponsor, like sex).
- **Dub. VI** — whether confirmation may be repeated like the sickness it cures; resolved: no, by reason of character, effect, and the thing signified (Pentecost).

**Page-split map.** **p.175:** DUB. I header + objection only (opener "In parte ista…" at foot of left column; "Videtur enim non fuisse recta…" at foot of right column). **p.176:** DUB. I Respondeo; all of DUB. II (obj + Respondeo); all of DUB. III (obj + Respondeo); DUB. IV objection. **p.177:** DUB. IV Respondeo; all of DUB. V; all of DUB. VI — then DISTINCTIO VIII begins (left-column foot / right-column foot).

**Footer ownership.** Quaracchi restarts numbering each printed page. **p.175** prints footer notes 1–7, but notes **3–6 belong to the neighboring Article III, q. 3** (anchored at the *character/ordo* superscripts of that quaestio's Respondeo, which shares p.175); only notes **1, 2, 7** anchor in this dubia body (DUB. I objection). **p.176** notes 1–12 all anchor here (DUB. I Respondeo through DUB. III + DUB. IV obj), rendered `p176-1…p176-12`. **p.177** notes 1–10 all anchor here (DUB. IV Respondeo through DUB. VI), rendered `p177-1…p177-10`; the fresh "NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM" sequence that follows (note 1 = *Hugo a S. Vict.*) belongs to d.8's littera, not this chunk. Total apparatus entries anchored in this body: **25** (3 on p.175 + 12 on p.176 + 10 on p.177).

**Boundary confirmation.** DUB. VI Respondeo ends "…nunquam ab eis discessit. Et sic patet illud." — the last words of the dubia. The raw OCR shows **`DISTINCTIO VIII.` immediately following at raw L20258** (running-head "177", then "VIII. Pars I. Cap. I."); no d.8 content is included. **d.8 begins cleanly at raw L20258**, confirmed. This completes Distinction VII.

**[?] flags.** None. All body text and all anchored footers read cleanly from the high-quality column bands and are corroborated by the raw OCR footer block.


site: bonaventure

collection: Book IV: On the Sacraments

title: Dist. 8, Part 1

title_alt: Distinctio VIII — textus Magistri Sententiarum

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

author: St. Bonaventure

languages: en la

title: Opera Omnia (Quaracchi critical edition)

publisher: Collegii S. Bonaventurae

source_text:
<!-- page 177 -->

> Le note numerate qui sotto corrispondono ai richiami presenti tanto nel testo latino quanto nella traduzione inglese. 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; the markers below are renumbered continuously across pp.177–179.

### Distinctio VIII. Pars I.

### Cap. I. *De Sacramento altaris.*

« Post Sacramentum baptismi et confirmationis sequitur eucharistiae Sacramentum. Per baptismum induimur, per confirmationem roboramur, per eucharistiam in bono consummamur[^1] ». Baptismus aestus vitiorum exstinguit, eucharistia spiritualiter reficit. Unde excellenter dicitur eucharistia, id est bona gratia, quia in hoc Sacramento non modo est augmentum virtutis et gratiae, sed ille totus sumitur, qui est fons et origo totius gratiae.

<!-- page 178 -->

### Cap. II. *Quod huius Sacramenti in veteri testamento figura praecessit, sicut et baptismi.*

Cuius figura praecessit, « quando manna pluit Deus Patribus in deserto, qui quotidiano caeli pascebantur alimento; unde: *Panem Angelorum manducavit homo.* Sed tunc panem illum qui manducaverunt mortui sunt. Iste vero panis vivus, qui *de caelo descendit,* vitam mundo tribuit[^2] ». « *Manna* illud *de* caelo, hoc super caelum; illud scaturiebat[^3] vermibus, in diem alterum reservatum; hoc ab omni corruptione alienum quicumque religiose gustaverit, corruptionem non videbit ». Illud datum fuit antiquis post transitum maris rubri, ubi, submersis Aegyptiis, liberati sunt Hebraei[^4]; ita hoc caeleste manna non nisi renatis praestari debet. Panis ille corporalis populum antiquum ad terram promissionis per desertum eduxit; haec esca caelestis fideles huius saeculi desertum transeuntes in caelum subvehit. Unde recte *viaticum* appellatur, quia, in via nos reficiens, usque in patriam deducit. Sicut ergo in *mari rubro* figura *baptismi* praecessit, ita in *manna* significatio *dominici corporis.* Haec duo Sacramenta demonstrata sunt, ubi de latere Christi sanguis et aqua profluxerunt[^5]; quia Christus per sanguinem redemptionis et aquam ablutionis nos redimere venit a diabolo et a peccato, sicut Israelitas per sanguinem agni paschalis ab exterminatore et per aquam maris ab Aegyptiis liberavit. — Huius etiam Sacramenti ritum Melchisedech ostendit, ubi panem et vinum Abrahae obtulit. Unde, ut ait Ambrosius[^6], intelligi datur, « anteriora esse Sacramenta Christianorum quam Iudaeorum ».

### Cap. III. *De institutione huius Sacramenti.*

Hic inter[^7] alia consideranda occurrunt quatuor, scilicet institutio, forma, Sacramentum et res. Sacramentum Dominus instituit, quando post typicum agnum corpus et sanguinem suum discipulis in Coena porrexit. Unde Eusebius Emisenus[^8]: « Quia corpus assumptum ablaturus erat ab oculis et illaturus sideribus, necesse erat, ut die Coenae Sacramentum nobis corporis et sanguinis consecraret, ut coleretur iugiter per mysterium quod semel offerebatur in pretium ».

### Pars II.

### Cap. IV. *De forma.*

Forma vero est, quam ipse ibidem[^9] edidit dicens: *Hoc est corpus meum;* et post: *Hic est sanguis meus.* Cum enim haec verba proferuntur, conversio fit panis et vini in substantiam corporis et sanguinis Christi. Reliqua ad Dei laudem dicuntur. Unde Ambrosius[^10]: « Sermone Christi hoc conficitur Sacramentum, quia sermo Christi creaturam mutat, et sic ex pane fit corpus Christi, et vinum cum aqua in calicem missum fit sanguis consecratione Verbi caelestis. Consecratio quibus fit verbis? Attende, quae sunt verba: *Accipite et comedite ex eo omnes; hoc est corpus meum;* et iterum: *Accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes; hic est sanguis meus* ». « Per reliqua omnia, quae dicuntur, laus Deo defertur, oratio praemittitur pro populo, pro regibus ». Item, Augustinus[^11]: « Credendum est, quod in verbis Christi Sacramenta conficiantur; reliqua omnia nihil aliud sunt quam laudes vel obsecrationes fidelium et petitiones ». — Ecce, quae sit institutio et forma huius Sacramenti.

### Cap. V. *Quare Christus post alium cibum dedit hoc Sacramentum discipulis.*

Ubi consideratione dignum est, quare illud Sacramentum post coenam dedit discipulis. Dominus igitur Iesus ad invisibilia paternae Maiestatis migraturus, celebrato cum discipulis typico pascha, quoddam memoriale eis commendare volens, sub specie panis et vini corpus et sanguinem suum[^12] eis tradidit, ut ostenderet, legis veteris Sacramenta, inter quae praecipuum erat agni paschalis sacrificium, in morte sua terminari, ac novae legis Sacramenta substitui, in quibus excellit mysterium eucharistiae. Ideo etiam post alia dedit, ut hoc unum arctius memoriae discipulorum infigeretur et ab Ecclesia deinceps frequentaretur. Sed non exinde disciplinam sanxit in posterum, ut post alios cibos sumatur; potius a ieiunis sumi oportet, sicut Apostolus[^13] docet, ut singulari reverentia diiudicetur, id est, discernatur ab aliis cibis; quod Dominus Apostolis disponendum reliquit.

<!-- page 179 -->

Unde Augustinus[^14]: « Apparet, cum primo acceperunt discipuli eucharistiam, non eos accepisse ieiunos. Non ideo tamen calumniandum est universae Ecclesiae, quod a ieiunis semper sumitur. Placuit enim Spiritui sancto, ut in honore[^15] tanti Sacramenti prius in os Christiani dominicum corpus intraret quam alii cibi; ideo ubique mos iste servatur. Non enim, quia post cibos Dominus dedit, ideo pransi vel coenati illud accipere debent, ut illi faciebant, quos Apostolus arguit. Nam Salvator, quo vehementius commendaret mysterii illius altitudinem, ultimum hoc voluit infigere cordibus et memoriae discipulorum, a quibus ad passionem digressurus erat. Quo autem ordine deinceps sumeretur, Apostolis, per quos Ecclesias dispositurus erat, reservavit docendum ».

### Cap. VI. *De Sacramento et re.*

Nunc, quid ibi sit *Sacramentum,* et quid *res,* videamus. « *Sacramentum* est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma[^16] »; forma ergo panis et vini, quae ibi videtur, est Sacramentum, id est « signum sacrae rei, quia praeter speciem, quam ingerit sensibus, aliquid aliud facit in cognitionem venire ». Tenent ergo « species vocabula rerum, quae ante fuerunt, scilicet panis et vini ».

### Cap. VII. *Quod res Sacramenti duplex est.*

« Huius autem Sacramenti gemina est res, una scilicet *contenta et significata,* altera *significata et non contenta.* Res contenta et significata est caro Christi, quam de Virgine traxit, et sanguis, quem pro nobis fudit; res autem significata et non contenta est unitas Ecclesiae in praedestinatis, vocatis, iustificatis et glorificatis[^17] ». Haec est duplex caro Christi et sanguis. Unde Hieronymus: « Dupliciter, inquit, intelligitur caro Christi et sanguis: vel illa quae crucifixa est et sepulta, et sanguis, qui militis lancea effusus est, vel spiritualis illa ac divina, de qua ipse ait[^18]: *Caro mea vere est cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus;* et: *Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam et biberitis sanguinem meum, non habebitis vitam in vobis* ». « Sunt igitur hic tria distinguenda: unum, quod tantum est Sacramentum; alterum, quod est Sacramentum et res; et tertium, quod est res et non Sacramentum. Sacramentum et non res est species visibilis panis et vini; Sacramentum et res caro Christi propria et sanguis; res et non Sacramentum mystica eius caro. — Porro species illa visibilis Sacramentum est geminae rei, quia utramque rem significat et utriusque rei similitudinem gerit expressam. Nam sicut panis prae ceteris cibis corpus reficit et sustentat, et vinum hominem laetificat atque inebriat; sic caro Christi interiorem hominem plus ceteris gratiis spiritualiter reficit et saginat; unde: *Calix meus inebrians quam praeclarus est*[^19]*!* Habet etiam similitudinem cum re mystica, quae est unitas fidelium: quia, sicut ex multis granis conficitur unus panis, et ex pluribus acinis vinum in unum confluit; sic ex multis fidelium personis unitas ecclesiastica constat ». Unde Apostolus: *Unus panis et unum corpus multi sumus.* Unde Augustinus[^20]: « Unus panis et unum corpus Ecclesia dicitur, pro eo quod, sicut unus panis ex multis granis, et unum corpus ex multis membris componitur; sic Ecclesia ex multis fidelibus, caritate copulante, connectitur ». « Hoc mysterium pacis et unitatis nostrae Christus in sua mensa consecravit. Qui accepit hoc mysterium unitatis, et non tenet vinculum pacis, non accipit hoc mysterium pro se, sed contra se ». « Cuius etiam Sacramentum est corpus Christi proprium de Virgine sumtum; quia, ut corpus Christi ex multis membris purissimis et immaculatis constat, ita societas ecclesiastica ex multis personis, a criminali macula liberis, consistit. In cuius rei typo facta est arca Domini *de lignis Sethim*[^21], quae sunt imputribilia et albae spinae similia ».

---

english:
<!-- page 177 -->

### Distinction VIII. Part I.

### Chap. I. *On the Sacrament of the altar.*

« After the sacrament of baptism and of confirmation there follows the sacrament of the eucharist. By baptism we are clothed, by confirmation we are strengthened, by the eucharist we are consummated in the good[^1] ». Baptism extinguishes the heat of the vices, the eucharist refreshes spiritually. Hence it is excellently called *eucharist,* that is, *good grace,* because in this sacrament there is not only an increase of virtue and grace, but he himself is received whole, who is the fount and origin of all grace.

<!-- page 178 -->

### Chap. II. *That a figure of this Sacrament went before in the Old Testament, as also of baptism.*

A figure of it went before, « when God rained down manna upon the Fathers in the desert, who were fed by daily food from heaven; whence: *Man ate the bread of Angels.* But those who ate that bread then died. This bread, however, is living, which *came down from heaven,* and gave life to the world[^2] ». « That *manna* was from heaven, this is above heaven; that bubbled up[^3] with worms, when reserved to the next day; this, free from all corruption, whoever shall have reverently tasted, shall not see corruption ». That was given to the ancients after the crossing of the Red Sea, where, the Egyptians being drowned, the Hebrews were set free[^4]; so this heavenly manna is to be granted only to the reborn. That bodily bread led the ancient people through the desert to the land of promise; this heavenly food bears up the faithful of this age, as they cross the desert, into heaven. Hence it is rightly called *viaticum,* because, refreshing us on the way, it leads us all the way into our homeland. As therefore in the *Red Sea* the figure of *baptism* went before, so in the *manna* [went before] the signification of *the Lord's body.* These two sacraments were shown forth, when from the side of Christ blood and water flowed out[^5]; because Christ came to redeem us from the devil and from sin by the blood of redemption and the water of washing, just as he set free the Israelites by the blood of the paschal lamb from the destroyer and by the water of the sea from the Egyptians. — The rite of this Sacrament also Melchizedek showed forth, when he offered bread and wine to Abraham. Whence, as Ambrose says[^6], it is given to be understood that « the sacraments of the Christians are earlier than those of the Jews ».

### Chap. III. *On the institution of this Sacrament.*

Here among[^7] other things four come up for consideration, namely institution, form, Sacrament, and reality (*res*). The Sacrament the Lord instituted, when after the typical lamb he handed over his body and blood to the disciples at the Supper. Whence Eusebius of Emesa[^8]: « Because he was about to take away the assumed body from their eyes and to bring it to the stars, it was necessary that on the day of the Supper he should consecrate for us the Sacrament of his body and blood, so that it might be honored continually through the mystery which was offered once as a price ».

### Part II.

### Chap. IV. *On the form.*

The form, however, is that which he himself there[^9] uttered, saying: *This is my body;* and afterwards: *This is my blood.* For when these words are pronounced, the conversion of the bread and wine into the substance of the body and blood of Christ takes place. The rest are said for the praise of God. Whence Ambrose[^10]: « By the discourse of Christ this Sacrament is confected, because the discourse of Christ changes the creature, and so from bread is made the body of Christ, and the wine with water put into the chalice becomes blood by the consecration of the heavenly Word. By which words is the consecration made? Attend to what the words are: *Take and eat ye all of this; this is my body;* and again: *Take and drink ye all of this; this is my blood* ». « Through all the rest that are said, praise is offered to God, prayer is sent up beforehand for the people, for kings ». Likewise, Augustine[^11]: « It must be believed that in the words of Christ the sacraments are confected; all the rest are nothing other than the praises or supplications and petitions of the faithful ». — Behold, what the institution and form of this Sacrament are.

### Chap. V. *Why Christ gave this Sacrament to the disciples after another food.*

Here it is worthy of consideration why he gave that Sacrament to the disciples after the supper. The Lord Jesus therefore, about to pass over to the invisible things of the Father's Majesty, having celebrated with the disciples the typical Passover, wishing to commend to them a certain memorial, handed over to them his body and blood[^12] under the species of bread and wine, in order to show that the sacraments of the old law, among which the chief was the sacrifice of the paschal lamb, were to be terminated in his death, and the sacraments of the new law to be substituted, among which the mystery of the eucharist excels. For this reason also he gave it after the other [foods], so that this one might be more closely fixed in the memory of the disciples and be frequented thereafter by the Church. But he did not thereby establish a discipline for the future, that it should be taken after other foods; rather it ought to be taken by those who are fasting, as the Apostle[^13] teaches, so that it may be judged (*diiudicetur*) with singular reverence, that is, discerned from other foods; which the Lord left to the Apostles to dispose.

<!-- page 179 -->

Whence Augustine[^14]: « It appears that, when the disciples first received the eucharist, they did not receive it fasting. Yet on that account the whole Church is not to be calumniated, because it is always taken by those who are fasting. For it pleased the Holy Spirit that, in honor[^15] of so great a Sacrament, the Lord's body should enter the mouth of the Christian before other foods; therefore everywhere this custom is kept. For it is not because the Lord gave it after foods that those who have dined or supped ought to receive it, as those did whom the Apostle reproved. For the Savior, that he might the more vehemently commend the loftiness of that mystery, willed to fix this last in the hearts and memory of the disciples, from whom he was about to depart to the passion. But in what order it should thenceforth be taken, he reserved to be taught by the Apostles, through whom he was about to arrange the Churches ».

### Chap. VI. *On the Sacrament and the reality.*

Now let us see what is *Sacrament* there, and what is *reality.* « A *Sacrament* is the visible form of invisible grace[^16] »; the form therefore of bread and wine, which is there seen, is the Sacrament, that is, « a sign of a sacred thing, because besides the appearance which it presents to the senses, it makes something else come into knowledge ». Therefore the appearances « keep the names of the things which were before, namely of bread and of wine ».

### Chap. VII. *That the reality of the Sacrament is twofold.*

« Of this Sacrament, moreover, there is a twin reality, one namely *contained and signified,* the other *signified and not contained.* The reality contained and signified is the flesh of Christ, which he drew from the Virgin, and the blood, which he shed for us; but the reality signified and not contained is the unity of the Church in the predestined, the called, the justified, and the glorified[^17] ». This is the twofold flesh of Christ and blood. Whence Jerome: « In two ways, he says, is the flesh of Christ and the blood understood: either that which was crucified and buried, and the blood which was poured out by the soldier's lance, or that spiritual and divine flesh, of which he himself says[^18]: *My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink;* and: *Unless you eat my flesh and drink my blood, you shall not have life in you* ». « There are therefore here three things to be distinguished: one, which is Sacrament only; another, which is Sacrament and reality; and a third, which is reality and not Sacrament. Sacrament and not reality is the visible species of bread and wine; Sacrament and reality is the proper flesh of Christ and his blood; reality and not Sacrament is his mystical flesh. — Furthermore, that visible species is the Sacrament of a twin reality, because it signifies each reality and bears an express likeness of each reality. For just as bread, beyond other foods, refreshes and sustains the body, and wine gladdens and inebriates a man; so the flesh of Christ refreshes and fattens the interior man more than other graces spiritually; whence: *How splendid is my inebriating chalice*[^19]*!* It has also a likeness with the mystical reality, which is the unity of the faithful: because, just as from many grains one bread is confected, and from many grapes wine flows together into one; so from many persons of the faithful the ecclesiastical unity stands together ». Whence the Apostle: *We being many are one bread and one body.* Whence Augustine[^20]: « The Church is called one bread and one body, for the reason that, just as one bread is from many grains, and one body is composed of many members; so the Church is connected together from many faithful, charity coupling them ». « This mystery of our peace and unity Christ consecrated at his table. He who has received this mystery of unity, and does not keep the bond of peace, does not receive this mystery for himself, but against himself ». « Of which also the Sacrament is the proper body of Christ taken from the Virgin; because, as the body of Christ stands together from many most pure and immaculate members, so the ecclesiastical society [stands together] from many persons, free from criminal stain. In the type of which reality was made the ark of the Lord *of setim wood*[^21], which [pieces] are incorruptible and like to white thorn ».

---

la: Hugo a S. Vict., *Sum. Sent.* tr. 6. c. 2.

en: Hugh of St. Victor, *Summa Sententiarum,* tract 6, c. 2.

la: Loci Scripturae, qui respiciuntur, vel citantur, sunt (de manna) Exod. 16, 15; Ps. 77, 25; Ioan. 6, 41.

en: The scriptural passages which are referred to, or cited, are (concerning the manna) Exod. 16:15; Ps. 77:25; John 6:41.

la: Vat. et ed. 8 *scatebat vermibus,* sed teste Forcellino, *Lexicon* etc., *scaturire* saepe eodem sensu usurpatur.

en: The Vatican edition and ed. 8 read *scatebat vermibus,* but on the testimony of Forcellini, *Lexicon* etc., *scaturire* is often used in the same sense.

la: Respicitur Exod. 16, 14; deinde ibid. 14, 22. seqq.

en: Reference is to Exod. 16:14; then ibid. 14:22 ff.

la: Codd. *fluxerant;* et respicitur Ioan. 19, 34, inferius Exod. 12, 13; de Melchisedech cfr. Gen. 14, 18.

en: The codices read *fluxerant;* and reference is to John 19:34, below to Exod. 12:13; concerning Melchizedek cfr. Gen. 14:18.

la: Loc. cit. c. 8. n. 14, et IV. de Sacram. c. 3. n. 10.

en: At the place cited, c. 8, n. 14, and *On the Sacraments* IV, c. 3, n. 10.

la: Ita cod., D codd. A B C et ed. I *ante;* aliae edd. etiam.

en: Thus a codex; D, the codices A B C and ed. I [read] *ante;* the other editions also.

la: Homil. de Corp. et sang. Christi, n. 1. inter opera Hieron. (Epist. 38.); eadem est inter opera Isidori, Serm. 4. de corp. etc. n. 2. et C. *Quia corpus* (35.), de Consecrat. dist. 2.

en: Homily on the Body and Blood of Christ, n. 1, among the works of Jerome (Epist. 38); the same is found among the works of Isidore, Sermon 4 on the body etc., n. 2, and in the canon *Quia corpus* (35), *De Consecratione* dist. 2.

la: Matth. 26, 26. 27. qui locus et infra citatur.

en: Matt. 26:26–27, which passage is also cited below.

la: Libr. IV. de Sacram. c. 4. n. 14. seqq.; seq. locus ibid., cfr. C. *Panis est* (55.), ibid.

en: *On the Sacraments* book IV, c. 4, n. 14 ff.; the following passage [is] in the same place, cfr. the canon *Panis est* (55), in the same place.

la: Invenitur praecise apud Paschasium Radbert. de Corp. et sang. Domini, c. 13. n. 1, et C. *Utrum sub figura* (72.), ibid. § 2. 3. — De sequentibus cfr. Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 23. 24, apud Lyranum.

en: It is found precisely in Paschasius Radbertus, *On the Body and Blood of the Lord,* c. 13, n. 1, and in the canon *Utrum sub figura* (72), in the same place, §§ 2–3. — Concerning what follows cfr. the Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:23–24, in Lyra.

la: Solae edd., excepta I, adiiciunt *ita.*

en: Only the editions, except ed. I, add *ita.*

la: Respicitur I. Cor. 11, 22, et deinde alluditur ad v. 34. — Paulo superius ante *potius* cum codd. et ed. 3 omisimus *sed.*

en: Reference is to 1 Cor. 11:22, and then there is an allusion to v. 34. — A little above, before *potius,* with the codices and ed. 3 we have omitted *sed.*

la: Epist. 54. (alias 118.) ad Ianuar. c. 6. n. 7. 8, et C. *Liquido* (54.), ibid. Ibi pro *Apostolus arguit* cod. B et edd., excepta I, habent *Apostolus redarguit.*

en: Epist. 54 (alias 118) to Januarius, c. 6, nn. 7–8, and in the canon *Liquido* (54), in the same place. There, for *Apostolus arguit* codex B and the editions, except ed. I, have *Apostolus redarguit.*

la: Sola ed. 8 usitatius *in honorem.*

en: Only ed. 8 [reads] the more usual *in honorem.*

la: August., X. de Civ. Dei c. 5, et Epist. 105. (alias 166.) ad Donatistas, c. 3. n. 12.; cfr. C. *Sacrificium* (32. § 1.), ibid. — Seq. locus est II. de Doctr. christiana, c. 1. n. 1, et C. *Signum* (33.), ibid. Tertius est in C. *Specie* (34.), ibid.

en: Augustine, *City of God* X, c. 5, and Epist. 105 (alias 166) to the Donatists, c. 3, n. 12; cfr. the canon *Sacrificium* (32 § 1), in the same place. — The following passage is from *On Christian Doctrine* II, c. 1, n. 1, and the canon *Signum* (33), in the same place. The third is in the canon *Specie* (34), in the same place.

la: Ex Glossa ad I. Cor. 11, 23, apud Lyranum, ubi etiam habentur verba Hieronymi, Comment. in Eph. 1, 7, (cfr. C. *Dupliciter* (49.), ibid.) et tertius locus.

en: From the Gloss on 1 Cor. 11:23, in Lyra, where also are found the words of Jerome, *Commentary on Eph.* 1:7, (cfr. the canon *Dupliciter* (49), in the same place) and the third passage.

la: Ioan. 6, 56; deinde ibid. 54.

en: John 6:56; then ibid. 54.

la: Psalm. 22, 5. — De unitate fidelium cfr. August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 15 et 17. — Locus Scripturae est I. Cor. 10, 17; cfr. ibid. Lyranus.

en: Psalm 22:5. — Concerning the unity of the faithful cfr. Augustine, *On the Gospel of John,* tr. 26, nn. 15 and 17. — The scriptural passage is 1 Cor. 10:17; cfr. Lyra in the same place.

la: Tract. cit. in Ioan., verbotenus autem apud Lyranum, loc. cit. — Seq. loc. est C. *Quia passus* (36.), ibid. § 1. — Tertius est apud Lyranum, I. Cor. 11, 24.

en: The tract cited on John, but verbatim in Lyra, at the place cited. — The following passage is the canon *Quia passus* (36), in the same place, § 1. — The third is in Lyra, 1 Cor. 11:24.

la: Respicitur Exod. 25, 10.

en: Reference is to Exod. 25:10. ---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set column-by-column from the PDF column-bands for printed pp.177–179 (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p{177,178,179}-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`), with the OCR raw text (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 20258–20479) as the base. PDF bands were authoritative for the cascade-fragmented footers; the OCR raw served for clean running prose and footnote-marker spacing. Bands re-cropped at split x=2050 because the default crop clipped the right edge of the left column. English is a fresh literal parallel. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Chapter list.** This is Lombard's continuous *littera* for d.8, spanning two of his text-pars: **Pars I** = Cap. I (*De Sacramento altaris*), Cap. II (*Quod huius Sacramenti in veteri testamento figura praecessit*), Cap. III (*De institutione huius Sacramenti*); **Pars II** = Cap. IV (*De forma*), Cap. V (*Quare Christus post alium cibum dedit hoc Sacramentum discipulis*), Cap. VI (*De Sacramento et re*), Cap. VII (*Quod res Sacramenti duplex est*). All seven chapter headings and both Lombard pars markers are preserved in the body. The chunk id carries `p1` because d.8 is a two-pars distinction (Bonaventure's commentary splits into a Pars I and Pars II `COMMENTARIUS`); this single *littera* chunk holds the whole of Lombard's text for the distinction.

**Page-split map.** **p.177 (foot):** DISTINCTIO VIII heading + Pars I + Cap. I (*De Sacramento altaris*), printed at the bottom of the page below the close of d.7's *Dubia* V–VI; Cap. I's text begins in the left column and finishes in the right column (`…totius gratiae`). **p.178:** Cap. II (figura), Cap. III (institutio), the *Pars II* marker, Cap. IV (forma), and Cap. V down through `…Unde Augustinus`. **p.179:** the rest of Cap. V (the Augustine quotation), Cap. VI (*De Sacramento et re*), Cap. VII (*Quod res Sacramenti duplex est*) to its close (`…albae spinae similia`), below which the `COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII` / *Divisio textus* begins (raw L20480, the next chunk `d8-p1-divisio`).

**Footer ownership.** Quaracchi restarts footnote numbering on each printed page; the 21 entries above are renumbered continuously. **p.177:** of the footer notes printed on this page, the numbered block 1–10 (left col 1–6, right col 7–10) is anchored in d.7's *Dubia* IV–VI and is claimed by `bon-sent-IV-d7-dubia.md`; the fresh **NOTAE AD LIBR. SENTENTIARUM** sequence that follows (its note 1, *Hugo a S. Vict.*) is the first footnote of this *littera* (Cap. I marker `consummamur`) and is rendered here as `[^1]`. **p.178:** all 13 footer notes (left col 1–7, right col 8–13) anchor in this *littera* body (Cap. II through Cap. V), rendered `[^2]`–`[^14]`. **p.179:** all 7 footer notes (left col 1–3 printed under the *Divisio textus* rule but anchored in the *littera* body above — `honore`/`forma`/`glorificatis`; right col 4–7 — `ait`/`est`/`Augustinus`/`lignis Sethim`) anchor in this *littera* body (Cap. V tail through Cap. VII), rendered `[^15]`–`[^21]`. The *Divisio textus* footnotes (its own note 1 = *Sola ed. 8 … in honorem,* distinct from this littera's note 15) belong to `d8-p1-divisio`.

**Apparatus count.** 21 entries: p.177 → 1; p.178 → 13; p.179 → 7.

**`has_scholion`** is false: the *littera* (Lombard's text) carries no scholion; the scholia belong to Bonaventure's commentary chunks.

**`[?]` flags.** None. All readings on pp.177–179 were legible in the column-bands and corroborated by the OCR base.

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, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in Distinctionem VIII, Pars I — Divisio textus

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction VIII, Part I — Division of the text

source_text:
<!-- page 179 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.

### Pars I. *De antecedentibus Sacramentum eucharistiae.*

Post Sacramentum baptismi et confirmationis sequitur eucharistiae Sacramentum.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Haec est tertia pars huius partis totalis de Sacramentis, in qua Magister tertio loco agit de Sacramento eucharistiae. Dividitur autem haec pars in tres partes. In prima agit de eucharistia secundum se. In secunda per comparationem ad suscipientes sive manducantes, infra distinctione nona: *Et sicut duae sunt res huius Sacramenti*. In tertia per comparationem ad dispensantes sive conficientes, infra distinctione undecima: *Si autem quaeritur qualis sit illa conversio* etc.

<!-- page 180 -->

Prima pars habet duas. In prima determinat de his quae antecedunt esse huius Sacramenti. In secunda de his quae integrant esse huius Sacramenti, scilicet quae sunt forma verbi et elementum, et hoc ibi: *Forma vero, quam ipse ibidem edidit* etc.

Prima pars habet duas, quoniam antecedens hoc Sacramentum est duplex: quoddam, quod nihil confert ad esse, sed ad *manifestum esse*, et hoc est praefiguratio et nominatio; quoddam, quod confert ad esse, ut institutio; ideo prima pars habet duas partes et duo capitula. In prima determinat Magister de huius Sacramenti praefiguratione. In secunda de institutione, ibi: *Hic etiam inter alia consideranda occurrunt*. In prima parte primo posuit rationem nominandi et modos figurandi, ostendens, quatuor praecessisse figuras.

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae Magister determinat, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de figura Sacramenti eucharistiae.

Secundo de institutione.

Circa primum quaeruntur tria.

Primo quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit praefigurari.

Secundo quaeritur de numero figurarum et sufficientia.

Tertio quaeritur de figurarum praeeminentia.

---

english:
<!-- page 179 -->

## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII.

### Part I. *On the things antecedent to the Sacrament of the Eucharist.*

After the Sacrament of baptism and of confirmation there follows the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

This is the third part of the whole part on the Sacraments, in which the Master in the third place treats of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Now this part is divided into three parts. In the first he treats of the Eucharist in itself. In the second, by comparison to those who receive or eat it, below in distinction nine: *And just as there are two realities of this Sacrament*. In the third, by comparison to those who dispense or confect it, below in distinction eleven: *But if it is asked what that conversion is like*, etc.

<!-- page 180 -->

The first part has two [members]. In the first he determines concerning the things that precede the being of this Sacrament. In the second, concerning the things that constitute the being of this Sacrament, namely those which are the form of the word and the element, and this there: *But the form, which he himself set forth in the same place*, etc.

The first part has two [members], since what is antecedent to this Sacrament is twofold: one [kind] which confers nothing toward being, but [only] toward *manifest being*, and this is prefiguration and naming; another which confers toward being, as institution; therefore the first part has two parts and two chapters. In the first the Master determines concerning the prefiguration of this Sacrament. In the second concerning its institution, there: *Here also among other things that must be considered there occur*. In the first part he first set down the reason for naming and the modes of figuring, showing that four figures preceded.

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master determines, two things are principally asked.

First it is asked concerning the figure of the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Secondly concerning its institution.

Concerning the first, three things are asked.

First it is asked whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist ought to have been prefigured.

Secondly it is asked concerning the number of the figures and their sufficiency.

Thirdly it is asked concerning the preeminence of the figures.

---

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`, lines 20480–20551), with the two-column PDF bands `/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p179-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png` and `vol4-p180-{L,R}-{0,1}.png` authoritative throughout, since the OCR cascade-shatters this divisio (the DIVISIO TEXTUS and TRACTATIO reflow diagonally across both columns of pp.179–180). Reflowed left column then right column. Offset pdf = printed + 20.

**Pars I structure (confirmed from the text).** The opener "Ad intelligentiam huius partis … duo principaliter quaeruntur" and "Circa primum quaeruntur tria" confirm Pars I = **two articles**:
- **ARTICULUS I, *De praefiguratione Sacramenti eucharistiae*** — **3 questions** (q1: utrum debuerit praefigurari [prefiguration]; q2: de numero figurarum et sufficientia [number of figures]; q3: de figurarum praeeminentia [preeminence]). ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I begins at raw L20556/L20561, printed p.180, immediately after this chunk.
- **ARTICULUS II, *De institutione*** — 2 questions (the "Secundo de institutione" branch; built in its own chunks).

So Pars I = ART I (3q) + ART II (2q), matching the brief.

**Page-split map.** The COMMENTARIUS header, Pars-I rubric, and DIVISIO TEXTUS opener sit at the bottom of p.179 (after the d8-p1 *littera*, Cap. VI–VII, which fills the rest of p.179). The DIVISIO continuation, the second sub-division, and the entire TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM (the question listing) fall on p.180. ARTICULUS I / QUAESTIO I opens further down p.180.

**Footer ownership.** This chunk's body contains **no footnote anchors**, so `has_apparatus: false`. The seven numbered footers on p.179 (1 *Sola ed. 8 usitatius in honorem*; 2 August. de Civ. Dei; 3 Ex Glossa ad I Cor.; 4 Ioan. 6; 5 Psalm. 22 + de unitate fidelium; 6 Tract. cit. in Ioan. + C. Quia passus; 7 Respicitur Exod. 25, 10) all anchor in the **d8-p1 *littera*** (Lombard's Cap. VI–VII text, raw ≤ L20479), not here. The p.180 footers (beginning with *Et quod hoc Sacramentum sit praefiguratum* … Apostoli 1 Cor. 10) anchor in **d8-p1-a1-q1**, which owns L20561+.

**`[?]` flags.** None. The PDF bands rendered the entire divisio and tractatio cleanly.


title: Dist. 8, Part 2, Divisio Textus

title_alt: Commentarius in distinctionem VIII, Pars II: de integrantibus Sacramentum eucharistiae

title_alt: Commentary on Distinction VIII, Part II: on the things that integrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist

source_text:
<!-- page 189 -->

## COMMENTARIUS IN DISTINCTIONEM VIII.

#### Pars II.

*De integrantibus Sacramentum eucharistiae, de verbo scilicet et elemento.*

*Forma vero est, quam ipse ibidem edidit etc.*

TEXTUM MAGISTRI VIDE SUPRA PAG. 178.

### DIVISIO TEXTUS.

Supra egit Magister de antecedentibus Sacramentum eucharistiae. Hic agit de integrantibus ipsum, quae sunt duo, scilicet verbum et elementum sive visibile signum; et haec pars habet duas partes. In prima agit de forma verbi. In secunda vero de significatione sive continentia[^1] signi, ibi: *Nunc, quid ibi sit Sacramentum.*

Utraque pars habet duas. Nam in prima determinat primo, quae sit forma. Secundo, qualiter est utendum ea, utrum scilicet sicut instituta est quantum ad tempus: et hoc facit ibi: *Ubi consideratione dignum est.*

Similiter secunda pars, in qua agit de ratione significandi, habet duas. In prima determinat, quid sit ibi signum et quid signatum. In secunda determinat similitudinem et convenientiam unius ad alterum, ibi: *Porro illa species visibilis.*

### TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM.

Ad intelligentiam huius partis secundum duo, quae determinat hic Magister, duo principaliter quaeruntur.

Primo quaeritur de forma verbi in Sacramento eucharistiae.

Secundo, de significatione ipsius Sacramenti.

Circa primum quaeruntur duo.

Primo quaeritur de forma verbi super panem.

Secundo, de forma verbi super vinum.

---

english:
## COMMENTARY ON DISTINCTION VIII.

#### Part II.

*On the things that integrate the Sacrament of the Eucharist, namely the word and the element.*

*Now the form is that which he himself there set forth, etc.*

FOR THE TEXT OF THE MASTER SEE ABOVE, PAGE 178.

### DIVISION OF THE TEXT.

Above the Master treated of the things antecedent to the Sacrament of the Eucharist. Here he treats of the things that integrate it, which are two, namely the word and the element or visible sign; and this part has two parts. In the first he treats of the form of the word. In the second, of the signification or content[^1] of the sign, at: *Now, what the Sacrament is there.*

Each part has two. For in the first he determines, first, what the form is. Second, how it is to be used, namely whether as it was instituted with respect to time: and this he does at: *Where it is worthy of consideration.*

Likewise the second part, in which he treats of the ground of signifying, has two. In the first he determines what is the sign there and what is signified. In the second he determines the likeness and the fittingness of the one to the other, at: *Furthermore that visible species.*

### TREATMENT OF THE QUESTIONS.

For the understanding of this part, according to the two things which the Master determines here, two things are principally asked.

First it is asked about the form of the word in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.

Second, about the signification of the Sacrament itself.

Concerning the first, two things are asked.

First it is asked about the form of the word over the bread.

Second, about the form of the word over the wine.

---

la: Edd. cum paucis codd. *convenientia*. Utraque lectio defendi potest. Inferius post *forma* cod. B addit: *et de eius virtute sive efficacia, et sic secundo tangitur ratio institutionis quantum ad tempus, quae duplex est: prima est cessatio legalium Sacramentorum; secunda, impressio illius memoriae discipulorum; tertio removetur incidens, ibi: Sed non exinde.*

en: The editions, with a few codices, read *convenientia* ("content/agreement"). Either reading can be defended. Lower down, after *forma*, codex B adds: *and of its power or efficacy, and thus in the second place the ground of the institution with respect to time is touched on, which is twofold: the first is the cessation of the legal Sacraments; the second, the imprinting of that memory upon the disciples; thirdly an incidental matter is removed, at: But not thereafter.*

translators_notes:
**Provenance.** Latin re-set from the IA djvu OCR base, raw lines 21453–21496 (`raw/bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt`), reflowed left-column-then-right against the p.189 PDF column bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p189-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`). Vol IV is two-column; the bands were authoritative wherever the OCR cascade-fragmented (the OCR scattered the two-column DIVISIO/TRACTATIO into a diagonal one-token-per-line interleave of the two columns).

**Page span.** All of this chunk's body sits on printed page **189** (pdf 209; offset +20). The running head reads `DIST. VIII. P. II. ART. I. QUAEST. I. — 189`, confirming we are in Pars II. The COMMENTARIUS Pars II opens at the top of p.189 (the bottom of p.188 still carries the Pars I dubia, ending with DUB. IV in p.188's right column — that material is owned by the Pars I dubia chunk, raw lines 21303–21452).

**Pars II structure (confirmed).** Pars II treats the Sacrament's *integralia* — the word + the element. The TRACTATIO lists exactly four questions across two articles, as expected:
- **ART. I — *De forma verbi*** (2 qq): q1 = de forma verbi super **panem** (over the bread); q2 = de forma verbi super **vinum** (over the wine).
- **ART. II — *De significatione ipsius Sacramenti*** (2 qq): what is the *signum/signatum* (the *res* and the *Sacramentum*), and the *similitudo et convenientia* of the one to the other (the unity of the Sacrament). The TRACTATIO names the second principal question ("Secundo, de significatione ipsius Sacramenti") but enumerates only Art. I's two sub-questions here; Art. II's two questions are enumerated at the head of that article (raw beyond this range).

ARTICULUS I (*De forma verbi in Sacramento eucharistiae*) and its QUAESTIO I (*De forma verbi super panem*) begin at the foot of p.189 and are owned by `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a1-q1` (raw line 21497+), excluded here.

**Footer ownership / page-split map.** Printed page 189 carries two footer notes:
- **[^1]** (`Edd. cum paucis codd. convenientia…`) anchors to the DIVISIO TEXTUS phrase *significatione sive continentia ¹ signi* — **in this chunk's body** → owned here, renumbered `[^1]`.
- Footnote **2** (`Libr. XII. Grammatic. … Priscianus`) anchors to *ut dicit Priscianus ²* in the QUAESTIO I body at the foot of p.189 → **owned by `bon-sent-IV-d8-p2-a1-q1`**, not rendered here.

The Pars I dubia (raw 21303–21452) owns the footers on p.188; this chunk claims only the single footnote anchored in its own body.

**[?] flags.** None. The OCR garbles in the range (`YIIL`=VIII, `IMAGISTRI`=MAGISTRI, `Sacramen-tnm`, `delerminat`, `simililudinem`, `enchanstiae`) were all unambiguous and silently corrected against the PDF bands; the variant note and the col-B addition were transcribed directly from the p.189 left-column footer band.


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

source_text:
<!-- page 180 -->

### Articulus I. *De praefiguratione Sacramenti eucharistiae.*
### Quaestio I. *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit praefigurari.*

Et quod hoc Sacramentum *sit praefiguratum*, patet per illud Apostoli, primae ad Corinthios decimo[^1]: *Omnes eandem escam spiritualem manducaverunt;* et post: *Haec omnia contingebant illis in figura.* Et quod *ita debuerit*, apparet:

1. Quia, si lex vetus fuit nobis futurorum figura, et quae erant digniora magis debent praefigurari, cum hoc Sacramentum sit dignissimum, maxime debuit praefigurari.

2. Item, *ratione* alia ostenditur: quia congruum erat, ut processus a tenebris ad lucem fieret mediante umbra et figura, quia, sicut natura non sustinet repentinas immutationes, sic nec anima[^2]; sed in hoc Sacramento est ipsa lux praesens: ergo debuit praefigurari.

3. Item, hoc Sacramentum est difficillimum ad credendum; sed ad difficilia paulative est infirmus promovendus: ergo etc.

**Contra:** 1. «Mutationis non est mutatio[^3]»: ergo nec signi signum; sed Sacramentum hoc, eo ipso quod Sacramentum est, est signum et figura: ergo non debuit praesignari nec praefigurari.

2. Item, confirmatio et extrema unctio sunt novae legis Sacramenta et non habent figuras in veteri — quia, si dicas de unctione regum[^4], illud nihil est, quia illud speciale, hoc universale — ergo nec hoc debuit habere.

3. Item, baptismus habuit figuram[^5], quae non tantum fuit figura, sed etiam remedium, ut puta circumcisionem; sed nihil praecessit Sacramentum altaris, quod haberet eius remedium: ergo hoc Sacramentum est sine figura.

> ### Conclusio.
> *Eucharistiae Sacramentum praefigurari conveniens fuit ratione tum suae dignitatis, tum difficultatis in credendo.*

**Respondeo:** Dicendum, quod istud Sacramentum praefiguratum est et praefigurari debuit tum ratione suae *dignitatis*, tum ratione *difficultatis*: ratione dignitatis, quia praedicandum et exspectandum erat sicut donum Dei excellentissimum[^6]; ideo figurae

<!-- page 181 -->

huius Sacramenti praeire debuerunt, et in quibus refocillaretur exspectatio fidelium, et dignitas huius Sacramenti famosior ostenderetur; unde figurarum praemissio non fuit aliud quam famae eius divulgatio. — Ratione *difficultatis*, quia hoc[^7] inter Sacramenta cetera est difficillimum ad credendum, immo inter cetera *credibilia*; ideo debuerunt homines ad hoc assuefieri quadam figurarum manuductione.

1. Ad illud quod obiicitur primo in contrarium, quod signi non est signum; dicendum, quod illud signum habet veritatem coniunctam[^8]; unde non tantum est signum, sed etiam ratione coniuncti est veritas; et quoniam veritatis potest esse signum et figura, ideo Sacramentorum novae legis potest esse signum et figura, et maxime huius.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de confirmatione et extrema unctione, multipliciter respondetur. — Quidam enim dicunt, quod omnia Sacramenta in veteri lege sunt praefigurata, quoniam *rota erat in rota*, in visione Ezechielis[^9]. Et quod obiicitur de duobus Sacramentis, solvunt *per interemptionem:* quoniam tres unctiones legis novae praefiguratae sunt per tres unctiones David, de quibus primi Regum decimo sexto, et secundi Regum secundo et quinto[^10], et ita *per interemptionem* respondent.

Alii dicunt aliter, quod illa Sacramenta non fuerunt praefigurata propter suam perfectionem; unde distinguunt tria genera Sacramentorum. Quaedam enim sunt *suprema*, ut illa quae dant gratiam perfectam vel ad *pugnandum*, vel ad *egrediendum;* et talia sunt confirmatio et extrema unctio, quae de ratione sua perfectionem dicunt; et quoniam *Lex neminem ad perfectum duxit*[^11], ideo haec duo sunt propria novae legis[^12]. — Alia sunt quasi *media*, quae gratiam magnam dant, ideo pertinent ad legem novam; tamen, quia non dicunt perfectionem, possunt praesignata esse in veteri testamento, et haec, ut dicunt, sunt duo, scilicet baptismus et eucharistia. — Quaedam sunt *infima*, ut matrimonium, ordo et poenitentia; et haec non sunt propria, immo communia, nec tantum praesignata, immo inchoata et in nova perfecta. — Tamen praeferre alia Sacramenta duobus, quae praefigurata sunt, videtur valde absurdum, cum sint haec duo Sacramenta, baptismus et eucharistia, famosissima.

Et ideo aliter dicendum, quod quamvis omnia aliquo modo praefigurata sint, haec duo tamen pluribus et expressioribus figuris, tum propter *difficultatem in credendo*, quae est in baptismo, quia primum Sacramentum, in eucharistia, quia summum; tum propter *dignitatem*, quae est in baptismo quantum ad *efficaciam*, in eucharistia quantum ad *continentiam;* tum propter *Ecclesiae unitatem*, quae est in baptismo quantum ad inchoationem, in eucharistia quantum ad consummationem, vel in baptismo quantum ad *signaculum christianitatis*[^13], in eucharistia quantum ad *cultum Deitatis*. Unde quamvis alia habeant figuras aliquo modo, non tamen ita praecipue nec ita expresse.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod baptismus habuit figuram sanctificantem; dicendum, quod ratio huius est duplex. Prima est, quia baptismus est remedium contra morbum perniciosum et mortiferum; et est remedium parvulorum, qui se non possunt iuvare; et quoniam qui minus se possunt iuvare maiori indigent auxilio: ideo *Sacramentum* praecessit baptismum, quod de se haberet efficaciam[^14]. Non sic est de eucharistia, quoniam est Sacramentum iam viventium et adultorum, qui se possunt iuvare auxilio fidei et motu liberi arbitrii; unde supplet in eis fides quod deerat a parte Sacramenti. Et sic patent quaesita.

english:
### Article I. *On the prefiguring of the Sacrament of the eucharist.*
### Question I. *Whether the Sacrament of the eucharist ought to have been prefigured.*

That this Sacrament *was prefigured* is clear from that saying of the Apostle, First to the Corinthians, the tenth chapter[^1]: *They all ate the same spiritual food;* and afterward: *All these things happened to them in figure.* And that it *ought to have been so* appears:

1. Because, if the old law was for us a figure of things to come, and the things which were more worthy ought the more to be prefigured, then since this Sacrament is the most worthy, it most of all ought to have been prefigured.

2. Likewise, it is shown by another *reason:* because it was fitting that the passage from darkness to light should be made by means of shadow and figure, for, as nature does not bear sudden changes, so neither does the soul[^2]; but in this Sacrament the light itself is present: therefore it ought to have been prefigured.

3. Likewise, this Sacrament is the most difficult to believe; but the weak person must be advanced toward difficult things gradually: therefore, etc.

**On the contrary:** 1. "Of a change there is no change[^3]": therefore neither is there a sign of a sign; but this Sacrament, by the very fact that it is a Sacrament, is a sign and a figure: therefore it ought not to have been presignified nor prefigured.

2. Likewise, confirmation and extreme unction are Sacraments of the new law and do not have figures in the old — for, if you should speak of the anointing of kings[^4], that is nothing, because that is special, this universal — therefore neither ought this one to have had it.

3. Likewise, baptism had a figure[^5], which was not only a figure but also a remedy, as for instance circumcision; but nothing preceded the Sacrament of the altar which would have its remedy: therefore this Sacrament is without a figure.

> ### Conclusion.
> *That the Sacrament of the eucharist be prefigured was fitting both by reason of its dignity and by reason of the difficulty in believing.*

**I respond:** It must be said that this Sacrament was prefigured and ought to have been prefigured both by reason of its *dignity* and by reason of its *difficulty:* by reason of its dignity, because it was to be proclaimed and awaited as the most excellent gift of God[^6]; and therefore the figures

of this Sacrament had to go before, and in them the expectation of the faithful might be revived, and the dignity of this Sacrament might be shown more renowned; whence the sending-ahead of the figures was nothing other than the spreading abroad of its fame. — By reason of *difficulty*, because among the rest of the Sacraments this[^7] is the most difficult to believe, indeed among the rest of the things to be believed; and therefore men had to be accustomed to it by a certain leading-by-the-hand of figures.

1. To that which is objected first to the contrary, that there is no sign of a sign; it must be said that that sign has truth joined to it[^8]; whence it is not only a sign, but by reason of what is joined to it, it is truth; and since there can be a sign and figure of truth, therefore there can be a sign and figure of the Sacraments of the new law, and most of all of this one.

2. To that which is objected concerning confirmation and extreme unction, the response is manifold. — For some say that all the Sacraments were prefigured in the old law, since *the wheel was within the wheel*, in the vision of Ezekiel[^9]. And as to what is objected concerning the two Sacraments, they resolve it *by interception:* because the three anointings of the new law are prefigured by the three anointings of David, of which First Kings the sixteenth, and Second Kings the second and fifth[^10], and thus they respond *by interception*.

Others say otherwise, that those Sacraments were not prefigured on account of their perfection; whence they distinguish three kinds of Sacraments. For some are *supreme*, as those which give perfect grace either for *fighting* or for *going forth;* and such are confirmation and extreme unction, which by their very account bespeak perfection; and since *the Law brought no one to perfection*[^11], therefore these two are proper to the new law[^12]. — Others are as it were *middle*, which give great grace, and therefore pertain to the new law; yet, because they do not bespeak perfection, they could be presignified in the old testament, and these, as they say, are two, namely baptism and the eucharist. — Some are *lowest*, as matrimony, order, and penance; and these are not proper, but rather common, nor only presignified, but rather begun and perfected in the new. — Yet to prefer other Sacraments to the two which were prefigured seems quite absurd, since these two Sacraments, baptism and the eucharist, are the most renowned.

And therefore it must be said otherwise, that although all were in some way prefigured, these two nevertheless were prefigured by more and more express figures, both on account of the *difficulty in believing*, which is in baptism, because it is the first Sacrament, and in the eucharist, because it is the highest; both on account of *dignity*, which is in baptism with respect to *efficacy*, in the eucharist with respect to *containing;* both on account of *the unity of the Church*, which is in baptism with respect to its beginning, in the eucharist with respect to its consummation, or in baptism with respect to *the seal of christianity*[^13], in the eucharist with respect to *the worship of the Deity*. Whence, although the others have figures in some way, yet not so chiefly nor so expressly.

3. To that which is objected, that baptism had a sanctifying figure; it must be said that the reason for this is twofold. The first is, because baptism is a remedy against a pernicious and deadly disease; and it is a remedy for little children, who cannot help themselves; and since those who can less help themselves need greater assistance: therefore a *Sacrament* preceded baptism, which would have efficacy of itself[^14]. It is not so with the eucharist, since it is a Sacrament of the now-living and of adults, who can help themselves by the assistance of faith and the movement of free will; whence in them faith supplies what was lacking on the part of the Sacrament. And thus the things sought are clear.

la: Vers. 3. et 11. — Inferius post *Et quod ita* codd. G X supplent *esse*.

en: Verses 3 and 11. — Below, after *Et quod ita* ("And that it thus"), codices G X supply *esse* ("ought").

la: Cfr. supra pag. 88, nota 3.

en: Cf. above, page 88, note 3.

la: Aristot., V. Phys. text. 10. et 13. (c. 2.), nec non XI. Metaph. c. 11. (X. c. 12.). — *Minor* ostensa est supra d. 1. p. I. q. 2.

en: Aristotle, *Physics* V, texts 10 and 13 (c. 2), and also *Metaphysics* XI, c. 11 (X, c. 12). — The *minor* was shown above, d. 1, p. I, q. 2.

la: Cfr. 1. Reg. 10, 1. et 16, 13. — Inferius post *ergo* codd. H L P Q Y supplent *si illa duo non habuerunt* [cod. L addit *figuram*].

en: Cf. 1 Kings 10, 1 and 16, 13. — Below, after *ergo* ("therefore"), codices H L P Q Y supply *si illa duo non habuerunt* ("if those two did not have it") [codex L adds *figuram*, "a figure"].

la: Vide supra d. 1. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. et 3.

en: See above, d. 1, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 and 3.

la: Cfr. Breviar. Roman. antiphonae in festo Corp. Christi, quae sumtae sunt ex Psalmis ibi occurentibus. — Ex codd. H K L N Y substituimus *praedicandum et exspectandum* pro *praedicatum et exspectatum*. Inferius pro *refocillaretur*, quod praebent codd. E F G I, alii *refulciretur*, Vat. legit *ut et in iis praefulciretur*, et pro *famosior* codd. R S T *firmior*.

en: Cf. the Roman Breviary, antiphons on the feast of Corpus Christi, which are taken from the Psalms occurring there. — From codices H K L N Y we have substituted *praedicandum et exspectandum* ("to be proclaimed and awaited") for *praedicatum et exspectatum* ("proclaimed and awaited"). Below, for *refocillaretur* ("might be revived"), which codices E F G I give, others read *refulciretur*; the Vatican edition reads *ut et in iis praefulciretur*; and for *famosior* ("more renowned") codices R S T read *firmior* ("firmer").

la: Cod. H *quia non tantum*.

en: Codex H reads *quia non tantum* ("because not only").

la: In cod. bb secunda manus in margine addidit: *Vel dicendum, quod verum est, per se loquendo. Sacramentum autem duo concernit: signum et rem signi. Unde etsi Sacramentum non praefiguratur ea parte, qua signum est, praefiguratur tamen ratione rei, qua veritas est, sive ratione veritatis coniunctae.* Hoc additamentum sumtum est ex Alex. Hal., S. p. IV, q. 10. m. I. a. 1. § 1.

en: In codex bb a second hand added in the margin: "Or it must be said that it is true, speaking per se. Now a Sacrament concerns two things: the sign and the reality of the sign. Whence, although a Sacrament is not prefigured in that respect in which it is a sign, it is nevertheless prefigured by reason of the reality, in which it is truth, or by reason of the truth joined to it." This addition is taken from Alexander of Hales, S. p. IV, q. 10, m. I, a. 1, § 1.

la: Cap. 1, 16. et 10, 10: *Quasi sit rota in medio rotae.* Cfr. tom. III. pag. 545, nota 10, ubi verba Gregorii allata sunt.

en: [Ezekiel] c. 1, 16 and 10, 10: *As though there were a wheel in the midst of a wheel.* Cf. tome III, page 545, note 10, where the words of Gregory are cited.

la: Vers. 13. — Seq. loc. est II. Reg. 2, 4; tertius ibid. 5, 3.

en: Verse 13. — The following place is 2 Kings 2, 4; the third, ibid. 5, 3.

la: Hebr. 7, 19: *Nihil enim ad perfectum adduxit Lex.* — Pro *ad perfectum* codd. F H *ad perfectionem*. Paulo ante voci *perfectionem* codd. F G I praemittunt *plenam*, et pro *dicunt* cod. G substituit *dant*. Aliquanto superius pro *propter suam* cod. F *propter summam*. Inferius pro *non dicunt* cod. G et ed. I *non dant*.

en: Hebrews 7, 19: *For the Law brought nothing to perfection.* — For *ad perfectum* codices F H read *ad perfectionem*. A little before, to the word *perfectionem* codices F G I prefix *plenam*, and for *dicunt* codex G substitutes *dant*. Somewhat above, for *propter suam* codex F reads *propter summam*. Below, for *non dicunt* codex G and edition I read *non dant*.

la: Supple: *novae legis.* — Paulo inferius pro *in nova* cod. G *in novo* [testamento].

en: Supply: *of the new law.* — A little below, for *in nova* codex G reads *in novo* [testamento] ("in the new [testament]").

la: In cod. X secunda manus posuit *Christi humanitatis.*

en: In codex X a second hand put *Christi humanitatis* ("of the humanity of Christ").

la: Cfr. supra d. 2. dub. 3. — Codd. T X *ideo Sacramentum baptismi praecessit aliquid, quod de se haberet* etc.

en: Cf. above, d. 2, dub. 3. — Codices T X read *ideo Sacramentum baptismi praecessit aliquid, quod de se haberet* etc. ("therefore something preceded the Sacrament of baptism, which would have of itself," etc.).

latin_scholion:
1. De *nomine* huius admirabilis et ineffabilis Sacramenti, quod est *eucharistia*, cfr. infra dub. 2; de *essentia* eiusdem infra p. II. a. 2. — De *figuris* huius Sacramenti cum ceteris Scholasticis S. Thom. idem docet in Commentario et brevius in Summa (III. q. 73. a. 6.). Tres huius articuli quaestiones a multis una quaestione absolvuntur, sed ab Alex. Hal. (S. p. IV. q. 10. m. I. a. 1-3), adiectis aliis quaestionibus, diffuse exponuntur.

De tribus igitur his qq. praeter locos citt. S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1-3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 3. — Richard. a Med., hic a. I. q. 3. — Durand., hic q. I. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 2.

---

english_scholion:
1. Concerning the *name* of this admirable and ineffable Sacrament, which is the *eucharist*, cf. below dub. 2; concerning the *essence* of the same, below p. II. a. 2. — Concerning the *figures* of this Sacrament, S. Thomas, with the rest of the Scholastics, teaches the same in his Commentary and more briefly in the Summa (III. q. 73. a. 6.). The three questions of this article are by many resolved in a single question, but by Alexander of Hales (S. p. IV. q. 10. m. I. a. 1-3), with other questions added, are set forth at length.

Concerning these three questions, therefore, besides the places cited: S. Thomas, here q. I. a. 2. little-questions 1-3. — B. Albert, here a. 2. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I. a. 3. — Richard of Middleton, here a. I. q. 3. — Durandus, here q. I. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 2.

---

translators_notes:
- **Provenance:** Latin re-set from IA djvu OCR (raw `bonaventure_vol4_raw.txt` lines 20561–20722); vol4 PDF column-bands (`/tmp/colcrop/vol4-p180/181-{L,R}-{0,1,2}.png`, pdf = printed + 20) authoritative for the cascade-shattered Respondeo / Solutiones / scholion / footers. Article-I opener (ARTICULUS I + QUAESTIO I title) folds in per the project's article-opener convention.
- **Alignment confirmed:** raw L20563 title *Utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit praefigurari* = ART I, q1; the divisio (TRACTATIO QUAESTIONUM, "Primo quaeritur, utrum Sacramentum eucharistiae debuerit praefigurari") lists this as the first question. QUAESTIO II (*De numero et sufficientia figurarum*) opens at raw L20723 / printed p.182 and is excluded (belongs to a1-q2).
- **Page-split map:** body opens p.180 L (article opener + the three *Et quod ita debuerit* arguments + Contra 1), continues p.180 R (Contra 2 *confirmatio/unctio regum* + Contra 3 *baptismus habuit figuram* + Conclusio + start of Respondeo), then p.181 L→R (rest of Respondeo + Solutiones 1–3, ending "Et sic patent quaesita."). Scholion printed p.181 (foot of page) — a single article-level note. `<!-- page 181 -->` placed at the Respondeo continuation "huius Sacramenti praeire debuerunt…". NOTE: Contra args 2–3 sit in p.180's RIGHT column, after the title — easy to drop on a left-only read.
- **Apparatus / footer ownership:** 14 footnotes total, contiguously renumbered [^1]–[^14]. p.180 footer carried 6 Quaracchi notes ([^1]–[^6]; note ⁶ Breviar. Roman. runs over as the unnumbered lead line of p.181's footer — merged into [^6]). p.181 footer carried 8 q1-anchored notes ([^7]–[^14]). Mapping by body anchor: `Cod. H quia non tantum` → [^7]; the long Alex.-Hal. marginal addition → [^8]; the Ezekiel/`rota in rota` note → [^9]; `Vers. 13 / II Reg.` (David anointings) → [^10]; Hebr. 7,19 *perfectum* variants → [^11]; `Supple: novae legis` → [^12]; cod. X `Christi humanitatis` → [^13]; `Cfr. supra d.2 dub.3 / Codd. TX baptismi praecessit` → [^14]. 14 distinct footnotes — well above the <5 self-check floor.
- **Footers left to neighbors:** the divisio chunk (L20480–20560) owns p.180's DIVISIO TEXTUS / TRACTATIO footers preceding the article. QUAESTIO II (a1-q2, L20723+) owns ALL p.182 footers (the `iam vicentium`/Du Cange gloss + notes 1–7 visible on p.182 L-2 belong to q2's body, NOT this chunk) and any p.181 footer text anchored only in q2.
- **Scholion disposition:** ART I carries a single article-level scholion (one numbered section "1.") printed under q1, before q2 — it addresses the whole article (name, essence, figures, parallel Scholastic loci for all three questions). No per-quaestio `De prima`/`De 1. quaestione` subsection exists, so the entire scholion is rendered here under q1. `has_scholion: true`.
- **`[?]` flags:** none. All readings resolved against the PDF column-bands; the heavily-OCR-fragmented footer block (raw L20675–20722, two-column diagonal shatter) was fully reconstructed from p.181 R-2 / L-2 bands.