Commentary on the Book of Sentences

De Sacramento eucharistiae respectu suscipientium.

Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist in respect
to those receiving It.

Supra egit Magister de Sacramento eucharistiae in se; hic incipit agere per comparationem ad manducatem. Et quoniam circa manducationem eucharistiae dupliciter fuit erratum, et quantum ad manducatem 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 capitua. 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.

Above the Master [of the Sentences] dealt with the Sacrament of the Eucharist in itself; here he begins to deal with it by a comparison with eating [manducatem]. And since about the eating of the Eucharist there has been a twofold error, [he treats] both as much as regards its being eaten and as much as regards it [being] food, which is eaten;¹ on this account this part has two parts. In the first the Master [of the Sentances] excludes the error as much as regards those eating, because some have said, that the wicked do not eat the True Body of Christ. In the second he excludes the error as much as regards it [being] food, because others have said, that the True Body of Christ is received by no one, and he does this in the tenth distinction: Likewise there are others transgressing the insanity of the preceeding things etc..

The first part has three parts according to three points. In the first part the Master [of the Sentences] speaks the truth. In the second he manifests the liars, there [where he writes]: These words and other of this kind. In the third he unravels from these manfold expressions, there [where he writes]: According to those two manners of receiving etc.

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

For an understanding [intelligentiam] of these things which the Master [of the Sentences] determines in the present disctinction, two things are principally to be asked.

First there is the question concerning eating [manducatione] in general.

Second, [concerning eating] in special by a comparision to the wicked.

Concerning the first, four things are asked.

First there is the question concerning the ways of eating, which

¹  Not a few codices omit qui manducatur.

¹  Not a few of the codices omit which is eaten.

ponit Magister,¹ duos scilicet, sacramentalem et spiritualem.

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.

the Master¹ [of the Sentences] reckons [to be] two, namely, the sacramental and the spiritual.

Second, what is spiritual eating, or according to what proportion [pro quanto] is one said to eat spiritually,

Third, what is sacramental eating, or according to what proportion [pro quanto] is one said to eat sacramentally.

Fourth, whether Christ ate in either manner.

Quantum ergo ad primum proceditur sic. Quod duo debeant esse modi manducandi, scilicet « sacramentalis et spiritualis », secundum quod Magister² dicit, ostenditur:

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

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

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

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

Therefore as regards the first it proceeds thus. That two ought to be the manners of eating [this Sacrament], namely "sacramentally and spiritually," according to what the Master² [of the Sentences] says, is shown:

1. First by the authority of the Canon [of Sacred Scripture], in the sixth³ [chapter of the Gospel] of John: Who eats Me lives on account of Me, here the spiritual manner is touched upon; but in the eleventh [chapter] of the First [Letter] to the Corinthians: Who eats unworthily eats judgement upon himself, and here another manner is touched upon, which is not spiritual: therefore the eating of the Body of Christ is multiple.

2. Likewise, by the authority of Augustine:⁴ "One spiritually eats, who remains in the unity of Christ and [His] Church, which the Sacrament signifies."; "Who however disagrees with Christ neither eats the Flesh of Christ nor drinks [His] Blood, also if [he should dare] such a thing he accepts the Sacrament unto judgement every day [he receives it]."

3. Likewise, this very thing is shown by reason: because, since there are only two things [res] of this Sacrament,⁵ and it is possible, to accept one without the other: therefore there are two distinct manners [of receiving it].

4. Likewise, eating speaks of the use of the Sacrament: therefore since this Sacrament is more interior and more exterior [than the others], it is patent, that there are two eatings.⁶

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

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

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

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

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

ON THE CONTRARY: 1. It seems, that [there is] no [manner of eating this Sacrament] except one. because "where one [is] on account of another, there [there is] only one":⁷ therefore if the sacramental [manner of eating the Sacrament] is on account of the spiritual, or in regard to the spiritual, just as the sign [would be] to the thing signified [signatum]: therefore [there is] only one eating.

2. Likewise, the Flesh of Christ is true food,⁸ therefore just as it belongs to light to illumine, so it belongs to that Flesh to feed; but not corporally, therefore spiritually; but he who receives sacramentally receives the Flesh, and so is fed spiritually: therefore only one is the manner of eating, namely the spiritual.

3. Likewise, it is shown, that there are many manners [of eating this Sacrament], just as is said above in the fourth⁹ distinction, certain ones receive only a thing in baptism, certain ones only the Sacrament, certain ones both of these; therefore [there are] three manners [of receiving a Sacrament]: therefore by the same reason there are here also three eatings.

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

5. Likewise, threfold in us is theological virtue, and any whatever [of them] unite in thier own manner: therefore since some manner of eating corresponds to faith, some [manner corresponds] to charity; some [manner] will correspond to hope.

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

I RESPOND: It must be said, that twofold is the manner of eating [this Sacrament]. The distinction among which arises from a threefold principle, that is from the disposition of the ones obtaining [sumentium] it: because certain ones approach with an evil disposition, and these eat sacramentally; certain ones [are] well [disposed], and these [eat] spiritually. — Further there arises secondly the distinction from the manner of obtaining [the Sacrament]:

¹  Hic in lit. c. 1.
²  Hic in lit. c. 1
³  Vers. 58: Qui manducat me, et ipse vivet propter me. — Seq. textus est I. Cor. 11, 29: Qui enim manducat et bibit indigne etc.
⁴  Integra haec Augustini sententia exhibetur in Glossa apud Petrum Lombard. et Lyranum (Glossa ordinaria). Prima eius pars insinuatur ab August., in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 13. 15. 17. seq. et tr. 27 n. 6. Cfr. Serm. 71 (alias 11. de Verbis Domini) c. 11. n. 17; C. Credere in Iesum Christum (59.), et C. Hoc Sacramentum (63.), seq., de Consecrat. d. 2. Secunda pars invenitur in libro Sententiarum, quae S. Prosper ex operibus Augustini collegit, n. 341. (Alias 339.), et insinuatur ab Augustino, in Ioan. Evang. tr. 26. n. 18. Cfr. C. Qui discorda (65), de Consecrat. d. 2. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 1. — In fine testimonii pro accipit Vat. accipiat.
⁵  In cod. aa subiungitur scilicet corpus Christi verum et mysticum. Cfr. supra lit. Magistri, d. VIII c.7., et ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. a. 1
⁶  Cfr. Innocent. III, IV de Sacro altaris Mysterio, c. 14.
⁷  Secundum Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2. Cfr. tom. II. pag. 639, nota 2. — Post vel cod. aa addit se habet.
⁸  Ioan. 6, 56.
⁹  Lit. Magistri, c. 1.
¹⁰  Alex. Hal., S. p. IV a. 11. m. 1. a. 1, supplet qua unitur homo Deo. Vat. omittit primum ergo.

¹  Here in chapter 1 of Peter of Lombard's Letter.
²  Here in chapter 1 of Peter of Lombard's Letter.
³  Verse 58: Who eats Me, also lives on account of Me. — The following text is 1 Cord. 11:29: For who eats and drinks unworthily etc..
⁴  This entire sentence of Augustine is quoted in the Gloss by Peter Lombard and Nicholas of Lyra (the Glossa ordinaria). The first part of it is implied by Augustine, in [his commentary} on the Gospel of John, tr. 26. n. 13. 14. 15. 17. ff. and tr.27 n. 6. Cf. [Augustine's] Sermon 71 (alias 11 on the Words of the Lord) c. 11. a. 17; C. To believe in Jesus Christ (59.), and C. This Sacrament (63.), ff., de Consecrat. d. 2. The second part is found in [his] book of Sentences, which St. Prosper of Aquintaine collected from the works of Augustine, n. 341 (Alias 339), and is insinuated from Augustine, in [his Commentary] on the Gospel of John tr. 26. n. 18. Cf. C. Who disagrees (65), de Consecrat. d. 2. See here the letter of the Master [of the Sentences], c. 1. — At the end of the quote the Vatican edition has he would accept in place of he accepts.
⁵  In codex. aa there is subjoined namely the True and mystical Body of Christ. Cf above the letter of the Master [of the Sentences], d. VIII c. 7., and ibid. Commentary p. II a. 2. a. 1.
⁶  Cf. Pope Innocent III, IV On the Sacred Mystery of the Altar, c. 14.
⁷  According to Aristotle, III Topic. c. 2. Cf. Book II, pag. 639, n. 2. — After or codex aa reads pertains to instead of in regard.
⁸  John 6:56.
⁹  The Letter of the Master [of the Sentences], c. 1.
¹⁰  Alexander of Hales, Summa p. IV a. 11. m. 1. a. 1, supplies by which man is united to God. The Vatican edition omits the first therefore in this paragraph.

quia quidam suscipiunt ore corporis, et hi sacramentaliter; quidam vero ore cordis, et hi spiritualiter; unde secundum duplex os¹ duplex est manducatio. — Tertio oritur ab ipso Sacramento : quia duplicem habet rem, quarum una potest recipi sine altera; ita sicut duplex est baptismus, scilicet fluminis et flaminis a duplici re,² sic etiam duplex modus manducandi. — Et hoc ultimum est et completum, quia una res potest sumi sine altera.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod ubi unum propter alterum; dicendum, quod hoc verum est, si sit ibi unum propter alterum, quod non queat separari; sed cum separatur, iam non remanet unum.³

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

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

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

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

because certain ones catch [suscipiunt] it with the mouth of the body, and these [eat] sacramentally; certain ones truly with the mouth of the heart, and these spiritually; whence according to the twofold mouth¹ is the twofold eating. — The third arises from the Sacrament itself: because it has a twofold thing, of which one can be received without the other; thus just as baptism is twofold, namely of flowing water [fluminis] and of flame, from a twofold thing,² so also twofold is the manner of eating. — And this last [distinction] is also complete, because one thing can be obtained without the other.

1. Therefore to that which is objected, that where one [is] on account of another, it must be said, that this is true, if one is there on account of the other, because it cannot be separated; but when it is separate, then it does non remain one.³

2. To that which is objected, that the Flesh always feeds [the recipient]; it must be said, that that act always respects the disposition of the recipient [suscipientis], just as [light] illumines; whence just as the disposition germinates, so also the manner of eating.

3. To that which is objected, that thre are three manners [of receiving] in Baptism, and so etc.; it must be said, that that third manner is not distinquished from the other two except materially

4. To that which is objected concerning the union of nature, it must be said, that eating respects the act of the person, for that reaon eating is not according to nature, but is presupposed⁴ [by it].

5. To that which is objected concerning hope, certain men say, that it does not unite; because hope belongs properly to the future; nevertheless it must be said, that those eatings are not distinguished according to the virtues — because spiritual eating is according to faith and charity — but the Sacraments [are] according to its reality [res]. Whence every Sacrament, which indeed has two realities [res], can be received sacramentally and spiritually.

¹  De quo vide August., de Continentia, c. 1. n. 2. seqq., et de Mendacio, c. 16. n. 31. seq. Cfr etiam Gregor., XX Moral. c. 2. n. 5.
²  Nempe gratia et charactere. Cfr. supra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. in fine; d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in corp., a. 2. q. 3. et p. II. a. 1. q. 1 seq. — Inferius pro completum edd. cum pluribus codd. completivum.
³ Vide infra d. 28. q. 4. ad 3, et III. Sent. d. 27. a. 2. q. 3. ad 4. — Superius post ibi codd. I Y supplent ita.
⁴  Sive, ut infra q. 3. dicitur, praeexigitur "cibi existentia et eius ad cibatum naturalis convenientia". Cfr. supra d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2, ubi de baptismo dicitur, quod ipse sit remedium respiciens personam, non naturam.
⁵  Cfr. III. Sent. d. 26. a. 2. q. 4.

¹  Concerning which see Augustine's, On Continen\ce, c. 1. n. 2. ff, and On Lying, c. 16. n. 31. ff. Cf also Pope Gregroy the Great, XX Moralia, c. 2. n. 5.
²  That is, [sanctifying] grace and [the baptismal] character. Cf above d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1 at the end; d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in the body., a. 2. q. 3. and p. II. a. 1. q. 1 ff. — Below this in place of complete the editions with very many of the codices read completive.
³  See below d. 28. a. 4. in reply to 3, and Book III of the Sentences, d. 27. a. 2. q. 3 in reply to 4. — Above this after there codices I and Y insert in this manner.
⁴  Or, as below in q. 3. it is said, [that] "its existence as food and its natural suitability to feed" is predetermined. Cf above d. 4. p. I. a. 1. q. 2, where there is said concerning baptism, that it is the remedy pertaining to the person, not the nature.
⁵  Cf. Book III.of the Sentences, d. 26. a. 2. q. 4.

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

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

II. De seq. (2.) quaetione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. a. 3. — B. Albert., hic a. 2. — Petr. a Tar., loc. cit. quaestiunc. 2. — Alii auctores rem tangunt locc. citt.

III. Quoad 3. questionem communiter approbatur, tum quod non sumit sacramentaliter ille qui species consecratas sumit tantum ut rem, non ut signum, tum quod Angelos, quod « licet spiritualiter manducent Christum, non tamen convenit eis spiritualiter manducare hoc Sacramentum » (S. Thom., S. loc. cit. a. 2.).

De 3. quaetione: Alex. Hal., loc. cit. m. 1. a. 4. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 2; S. loc. cit. a. 3. ad 2. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 4. quaestiunc. 2. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1.

IV. In solvenda 4. quaestione posteriores Scholastici in hoc conveniunt, quod Christus in sacra Coena eucharistiam sacramentaliter sumserit, non autem cum effectu spirituali manducationis, qui est augmentum habitualis gratiae. Hinc Alex. Hal. (loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. §1. et 2.), licet concedat, Christum recepisse illum effectum spiritualis manducationis, qui est delectatio spiritualis ; tamen vult, eum non proprie spiritualiter manducasse; quod approbant etiam S. Bonv. (2. concl.) nec non Petr. a Tar. Sed S. Thom. (IV. Sent. d. 11. a. 3. q. 1. ad 4; S. III. q. 81. a. 1 ad 3.) dicit, Christum tunc manducasse tum sacramentaliter tum spiritualtier, aliter tamen quam ceteri. Quaestio haec et differentia est tantum de nomine.

De eadem quaestione praeter artt. citt.: B. Albert., IV. Sent. d. 12. a. 15. — Petr. a Tar., IV. Sent. d. 11. a. 2. a. 6. — Richard. a. Med., IV. Sent. d. 11. a. 4. a. 1.

I. The distinction of St. Augustine on the twofold manner of eating this most august Sacrament, which is dealt with in these four questiones, has commonly been received as an adequate division. Nevertheless one manner does not exclude the other, indeed by law the sacramental eating, which is done by the mouth of the body, ought to be conjoined with the spiritual eating, which is done by the mouth of the heart. In use though they can be seperated from each other and are separated. However the eating, which is done only by the mouth of the body, is not always sacramental on the part of the one eating, when namely one uses the species (of the Sacrament), not in so far as they are the Sacrament, but purely materially, thus he who does not know, that the species are consecrated, does not obtain [sumit] the Sacrament sacramentally, because he but receives it [i.e. the Sacrament] per accidens (cf. below q. 3.). — Also the spiritual eating can be done in various manners. Here St. Thomas (Summa., III, q. 80, a. 1, at n. 3.) teaches, that It is spiritually eaten not only on account of the desire to obtain [sumendi] this Sacrament already instituted, but also "according to (its) figure, just as the Apostles says in 1 Cor. 10:3,4, that the ancient fathers ...ate the spiritual food and drank the spiritual drink". Likewise moreover in Sent., (here in q. 1, a. 2, q. 4.) he distinguishes between spiritually eating Christ and spiritually eating this Sacrament; having added this, he says (at n.2), "that the ancient Fathers did not eat this Sacrament spiritually, because it had not yet been instituted...however the spiritually ate Christ". Likewise teaches Alexander of Hales in his Summa., p. IV, q. 11, m. 2, a. 2. §1, and Bl. (now St.) Albert the Great, here in article 5. But he deals in these more with the name (of the Sacrament) than with the thing. — (Bl. John Duns) Scotus (Sent., Bk. IV, d. 8, a. 3, n. 2.) says, that in a fourfold manner this Sacrament can be gathered, namely neither sacramentally nor spiritually {i.e. truly in a purely material manner}; or sacramentally, but not spiritually; or sacramentally and spiritually; or only spiritually and not sacramentally.

Concerning this first question: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit., m. 1, a. 1 and 2. —(Bl. John Duns) Scotus, in both versions of questions cited. — St. Thomas, here in q. 1, a. 1, questiuncula 3; (and in the) Summa the article cited. — Bl. (now St.) Albert the Great, here in articles 1 and 3 — (Bl.) Peter of Tarrentaise, here in q. 1, a. 2, questiuncula 1. — Richard of Middletown, here in a. 1, q. 3. — Concerning this and the following questions Durandus, here in q. 1.; (Bl.) Denis the Carthusian, here in q. 1.

II. Concering the following question (n. 2): Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. a. 3. — Bl. (now St.) Albert the Great, here in article 2. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarrentaise, loc. cit. questiuncula 2. — The other authors touch upon it in the places cited.

III. As regards question 3 it is commonly accepted, both that he who obtains [sumit] the consecrated species only as a thing, not as a sign, does not obtain [sumit] it sacramentally, and that the Angles, because "though they spiritually eat Christ, it it is not opportune for them to spiritually eat this Sacrament" (St. Thomas, Summa., loc. cit., a. 2).

In regard to q. 3: Alexander of Hales, loc. cit. m. 1, a. 4. — St. Thomas, here in question 1, a. 2, questiuncula 2; in the Summa., loc. cit., a. 3, at n. 2. — Bl. (now St.) Albert the Great, here in a. 4. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarrentaise, here in q. 1, a. 4, questiuncula. 2. — Richard of Middletown, here in a. 1, q. 1.

IV. In solving question 4 the later Scholastics agreed in this, that Christ in the sacred Banquet would have consumed the Eucharist sacramentally, but not with the effect of the spiritual eating, which is the augementation of habitual grace. Here Alexander of Hales (loc. cit. m. 2. a. 1. §1 and 2.), though he concedes, that Christ received that effect of the spiritual eating, which is spiritual delight; nevertheless he maintains, that he did not properly speaking eat spiritually; which even St. Bonaventure (in the conclusion of n. 2), not without (Bl.) Peter of Tarrentaise approves. But St. Thomas (Sent., Bk. IV, d. 11, a. 3, q. 1, at n. 4; Summa., III., q. 81, a. 1, at n. 3.) says, that Christ then ate both sacramentally and spiritually, however in another manner than the others. This questions is only a difference of names.

Concerning the same question besides the articles cited: Bl. (now St.) Albert the Great, Sent., Bk. IV, d. 12, a. 15. — (Bl.) Peter of Tarrentaise, Sent., d. 11, a. 2, q. 6. — Richard of Middletown, Sent., Bk. IV, d. 11, a. 4, q. 1.