Contents
Eighth Distinction
| Division of the Text and Overview of Questions | Num. 1 |
| Question One: Whether the Eucharist is a Sacrament of the New Law | Num. 15 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 20 |
| A. About the Idea or Definition of the Eucharist | Num. 21 |
| B. Whether Anything Real Subsists under Such an Idea | Num. 22 |
| C. That what Subsists under the Idea of this Name is a Sacrament | Num. 31 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 43 |
| Question Two: Whether the Form of the Eucharist is what is set down in the Canon of the Mass | Num. 52 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 59 |
| A. Whether the Eucharist has a Single Form | Num. 60 |
| B. What the Form of the Eucharist is | |
| 1. About the Words of Consecration of the Body | Num. 63 |
| 2. About the Words of Consecration of the Blood | |
| a. Two Doubts and their Solution | Num. 72 |
| b. Whether all the Words belong to the Consecration of the Blood | Num. 82 |
| α. Opinion of Others and its Rejection | Num. 83 |
| β. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 89 |
| C. What the Form of the Eucharist Signifies | |
| 1. The Opinion of Peter of Poitiers | Num. 96 |
| 2. The Opinion of Richard of Middleton and its Rejection | Num. 100 |
| 3. A Possible Solution Consisting of Thirteen Main Conclusions | Num. 104 |
| 4. Weighing of the Aforesaid Conclusions | Num. 132 |
| 5. Scotus’ own Conclusion | Num. 141 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 152 |
| Question Three: Whether the Sacrament of the Eucharist was fittingly Instituted after the Cena, or whether it could be Received by those not Fasting | Num. 156 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. About the Four Ways of Receiving this Sacrament | Num. 160 |
| B. A Difficulty as to the Third Way and its Solution | Num. 166 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 184 |
| Final Note | Num. 187 |
Ninth Distinction
| Overview of the Parts | Num. 1 |
| Single Question: Whether Someone in a State of Mortal Sin Sins Mortally in Receiving the Sacrament of the Eucharist | Num. 4 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. About Mortal Sin | Num. 9 |
| 1. About him who is Actually in Mortal Sin | Num. 10 |
| 2. About him who has not Repented of a Past Mortal Sin | Num. 11 |
| 3. About him who has Repented but has not Confessed | Num. 15 |
| B. About Venial Sin | Num. 19 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 22 |
Tenth Distinction
| Division of the Text and Overview of the Parts | Num. 1 |
First Part: On the Possibility of Christ’s Body Existing in the Eucharist
| Question One: Whether it is Possible for Christ’s Body to be Contained Really under the Species of Bread and Wine | Num. 8 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 14 |
| A. What is to be Maintained and by What Authority | Num. 15 |
| B. How What is Believed is Possible | |
| 1. Four Possibilities, to be Explained in Turn in what Follows | Num. 24 |
| 2. Two Possibilities to be Explained here | Num. 28 |
| a. First: About Christ’s Body Beginning to Exist on the Altar without Change of Place |
| α. Opinion of Others and its Rejection Num. 29 |
| β. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 42 |
| b. Second: About Christ’s Body Quantum without Quantitative Mode |
| α. First Opinion and its Rejection | Num. 56 |
| β. Second Opinion and its Rejection | Num. 59 |
| γ. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 61 |
| II. To the Initial Reasons | Num. 71 |
| Question Two: Whether the Same Body can be Located in Diverse Places at the Same Time | Num. 74 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. The Opinion of many People for the Negative Conclusion Num. 80 |
| 1. The Reasons of Henry of Ghent | Num. 81 |
| 2. Other Doctors’ Reasons | Num. 85 |
| 3. Further Reasons that can be Brought Forward | Num. 89 |
| B. The Possibility of an Affirmative Conclusion | |
| 1. Argument in General | Num. 94 |
| 2. Particular Reasons, drawn from the Statements of Henry of Ghent | Num. 95 |
| a. First Reason | Num. 96 |
| b. Second Reason | Num. 105 |
| c. Third Reason | Num. 113 |
| d. Fourth Reason | Num. 117 |
| 3. What Must be Said about these Four Reasons | Num. 119 |
| C. Scotus’ own Response | Num. 121 |
| D. To the Arguments Adduced for the Negative Opinion | Num. 128 |
| 1. Three Preliminary Propositions | Num. 129 |
| 2. To the Individual Reasons | Num. 132 |
| a. To the Reasons of Henry of Ghent | Num. 133 |
| b. To the Reasons of the Other Doctors | Num. 145 |
| c. To the Other Reasons that were Adduced | Num. 159 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 172 |
| Question Three: Whether the Body of Christ could be Located at the Same Time in Heaven and in the Eucharist | Num. 181 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 187 |
| A. Opinion of Henry of Ghent | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 188 |
| 2. Refutation of the Opinion | Num. 189 |
| B. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 194 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 197 |
Second Part: On the Things that can Belong to Christ’s Body in the Eucharist Num. 202
| Question One: Whether the Same Body, Existing Naturally and Existing Sacramentally, Necessarily has in it the Same Parts and Properties | Num. 203 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 208 |
| A. The Supposition being Made | Num. 209 |
| B. The Question being Asked | Num. 218 |
| 1. Whether the Natural Parts and Properties of Christ’s Body are Simply Necessarily in the Eucharist as well | |
| a. First Conclusion | Num. 222 |
| b. Second Conclusion | Num. 223 |
| c. Two Corollaries that flow from the Second Conclusion | Num. 231 |
| d. Difficulties against the Two Corollaries and their Solution | Num. 236 |
| e. Third Corollary | Num. 244 |
| 2. Whether the Same Parts and Properties are Present by Necessity in a Certain Respect | Num. 246 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 253 |
| Question Two: Whether any Immanent Action that is in Christ Existing Naturally is the Same in Him as Existing in the Eucharist Sacramentally | Num. 268 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Three Conclusions | Num. 275 |
| B. Proof of the Conclusions | |
| 1. Proof of the First Conclusion | |
| a. Universally | Num. 279 |
| b. Specifically | Num. 286 |
| 2. Proof of the Second Conclusion | Num. 290 |
| 3. Proof of the Third Conclusion | Num. 291 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 294 |
| Question Three: Whether any Bodily Motion could be in Christ’s Body as it Exists in the Eucharist | Num. 298 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Preliminary Distinctions | Num. 303 |
| B. Solution Consisting of Six Conclusions | |
| 1. Statement of the Conclusions | Num. 307 |
| 2. Proof of the Conclusions | |
| a. Proof of the First Conclusion | Num. 313 |
| b. Proof of the Second Conclusion | Num.314 |
| c. Proof of the Third Conclusion | Num. 315 |
| d. Proof of the Fourth Conclusion | Num. 317 |
| e. Proof of the Fifth Conclusion | Num. 326 |
| 3. Synthesis of the Statements Made | Num. 338 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 341 |
Third Part: On the Action that can Belong to Christ Existing in the Eucharist
| Question One: Whether Christ Existing in the Eucharist could, by some Natural Virtue, Change Something Other than Himself | Num. 348 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. About Human Powers | Num. 354 |
| B. Conclusions flowing Therefrom | Num. 356 |
| 1. First Conclusion and its Proof | Num. 357 |
| 2. Second Conclusion and its Proof | Num. 359 |
| a. Explication of the Second Conclusion | Num. 361 |
| b. Objection to the Aforesaid Conclusion, and Rejection of this Objection | Num. 365 |
| c. Final Opinion | Num. 368 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 372 |
| Question Two: Whether any Created Intellect could Naturally See the Existence of Christ’s Body in the Eucharist | Num. 376 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Opinion of Thomas Aquinas and Richard of Middleton | Num. 385 |
| B. Scotus’ own Opinion | |
| 1. On the Acceptation of the Terms ‘Intellect’, ‘To see’, ‘Naturally’ | Num. 389 |
| 2. Solution Consisting of Three Conclusions | |
| a. First Conclusion | Num. 396 |
| b. Second Conclusion | Num. 398 |
| c. Third Conclusion | Num. 408 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 411 |
| III. To the Arguments for the Opinion of Aquinas and Richard | Num. 420 |
| Question Three: Whether any Sense could Perceive the Body of Christ as it exists in the Eucharist | Num. 423 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. The Opinion of Others | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 426 |
| 2. Refutation of the Opinion | Num. 432 |
| B. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 440 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 443 |
Eleventh Distinction
| Division of the Text and Overview of the Parts | Num. 1 |
Eleventh Distinction. First Part: About Conversion or Transubstantiation
First Article: About the Possibility of Transubstantiation
| Num. 8 |
| Question One: Whether Transubstantiation is Possible | Num. 9 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 13 |
| A. About the Nature or Definition of Transubstantiation | Num. 14 |
| B. Whether there could be Anything under the Idea of Transubstantiation | Num. 24 |
| C. What Specifically falls under Transubstantiation | |
| 1. Opinion of Others | |
| a. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 30 |
| b. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 32 |
| 2. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 45 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 48 |
| Question Two: Whether it is Possible for any Being to be Converted into Any Being | Num. 51 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 58 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments of the First Part | Num. 62 |
| III. To the Arguments for the Opposite | Num. 72 |
| Second Article: About the Actuality of Transubstantiation Num. 88 |
| Question One: Whether the Bread is Converted into the Body of Christ | Num. 89 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. What Must be Maintained about the Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ | Num. 97 |
| 1. Three Opinions of the Ancients | Num. 98 |
| a. Reasons for the First Opinion | Num. 100 |
| b. Reasons for the Second Opinion | Num. 108 |
| c. Thomas Aquinas’ Reasons against the First and Second Opinion | Num. 109 |
| d. Rejection of Aquinas’ Reasons | Num. 116 |
| e. Scotus’ own Response | Num. 133 |
| f. To the Reasons for the First and Second Opinion | Num. 138 |
| B. The Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ can be Made Clear | Num. 143 |
| 1. How Transubstantiation into the Pre-existing Body of Christ can be Done | |
| a. About the Possibility of Transubstantiation | Num. 144 |
| b. On the Manner of this Possibility | |
| α. Opinion of Giles of Rome and its Rejection | Num. 148 |
| β. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 161 |
| c. A Doubt and its Solution | Num. 162 |
| d. Conclusion | Num. 174 |
| 2. What is Formal in the Term ‘To Which’ of Conversion | Num. 180 |
| a. First Opinion, which is from Giles of Rome and Thomas Aquinas | |
| α. Fundamental Reasons for the Opinion | Num. 181 |
| β. Applications to the Issue at Hand and Rejection of them | Num. 187 |
| γ. Insufficiency of Both Solutions | Num. 197 |
| b. Second Opinion, which is from Henry of Ghent | |
| α. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 207 |
| β. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 221 |
| γ. To the Reasons for the Opinion | Num. 231 |
| c. To the Fundamental Reasons for the First Opinion | Num. 249 |
| α. To the First Reason | Num. 250 |
| β. To the Second Reason | Num. 263 |
| γ. To the Third Reason | Num. 273 |
| δ. To the Fourth Reason | Num. 278 |
| d. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 285 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 288 |
| Question Two: Whether the Bread is Annihilated in its Conversion into the Body of Christ | Num. 293 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Opinion of Henry of Ghent | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 300 |
| 2. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 301 |
| B. Opinion of Giles of Rome and its Rejection | Num. 306 |
| C. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 310 |
| 1. Nothing of the Bread Remains after the Conversion Num. 311 |
| 2. The Bread is not Annihilated by this Conversion | |
| a. Proof | Num. 312 |
| b. Objection | Num. 313 |
| d. Scotus’ Rejection of the Objection | |
| α. Reasons Proving that the Bread is not Simply Annihilated | Num. 318 |
| β. On the Possibility of Evading these Reasons | Num. 328 |
| e. Conclusion | Num. 333 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments of the First Part | Num. 340 |
| III. To the Arguments for the Opposite | Num. 347 |
| Question Three: By which Propositions the Conversion of the Bread into the Body of Christ can be Truly Expressed | Num. 350 |
| I. About the Ways it cannot be Signified | Num. 351 |
| II. About the Ways it can be Signified | Num. 355 |
Second Part: About the Matter Suitable for Transubstantiation or Conversion
| Question One: Whether Wheat Bread Prepared with Elemental Water is the Appropriate Matter for Conversion into the Body of Christ | |
| I. The Response is Affirmative | Num. 362 |
| II. Three Doubts | Num. 368 |
| A. About the First Doubt | Num. 369 |
| B. About the Second Doubt | Num. 373 |
| C. About the Third Doubt | |
| 1. Opinion of the Greeks | Num. 375 |
| 2. Refutation of the Opinion | Num. 378 |
| 3. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 382 |
| Question Two: Whether only Wine Pressed from the Grape is Fitting Matter for Conversion into the Blood | Num. 385 |
Twelfth Distinction
| Division of the Text and Overview of the Parts | Num. 1 |
| First Part: About the Being of the Accidents in the Eucharist | Num. 7 |
| Question One: Whether there is in the Eucharist Any Accident without a Subject | Num. 8 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. First Opinion and its Rejection | Num. 16 |
| B. Second Opinion and its Rejection | Num. 21 |
| C. Scotus’ own Opinion | |
| 1. Preliminaries | Num. 25 |
| 2. Three Conclusions | Num. 28 |
| 3. Proof of the Conclusions | |
| a. Proof of the First Conclusion | Num. 31 |
| b. Proof of the Second Conclusion | Num. 36 |
| c. Proof of the Third Conclusion | Num. 39 |
| 4. Doubts against the Third Conclusion | Num. 46 |
| 5. Solution of the Doubts | |
| a. Solution of the First Doubt | Num. 53 |
| b. Solution of the Second Doubt | Num. 64 |
| c. Solution of the Third Doubt | Num. 70 |
| d. Solution of the Fourth Doubt | Num. 77 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | |
| A. To the First Initial Argument | Num. 83 |
| B. To the Second Initial Argument | Num. 92 |
| C. To the Third and Fourth Arguments | Num. 98 |
| Question Two: Whether in the Eucharist any Accident at all Remaining is without a Subject | Num.104 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Two Extreme Opinions | |
| 1. First Opinion | |
| a. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 115 |
| b. Rejection of the Opinion | |
| α. Against the Reasons for the Opinion | Num. 120 |
| β. Against the Conclusion of the Opinion | Num. 126 |
| 2. Second Opinion | |
| a. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 141 |
| b. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 143 |
| B. Scotus’ own Solution | Num. 146 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | |
| A. To the First | Num. 153 |
| B. To the Second | Num. 155 |
| C. To the Third | Num. 162 |
| D. To the Fourth | Num. 164 |
Second Part: About the Action of the Accidents in the Eucharist
| Single Question: Whether Accidents in the Eucharist can Have Any Action they were Able to Have in their Subject | Num. 173 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. The Opinion of Thomas Aquinas | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 186 |
| 2. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 188 |
| B. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 194 |
| C. Response to the Arguments for Thomas’ Opinion | Num. 196 |
| D. Three Conclusions for the Solution of the Question | |
| 1. First Conclusion | Num. 201 |
| 2. Second Conclusion | Num. 212 |
| 3. Third Conclusion | Num. 224 |
| E. Doubts Against these Conclusions | |
| 1. First Doubt | Num. 230 |
| 2. Second Doubt | Num. 232 |
| F. Solution of the Aforesaid Doubts | |
| 1. To the First Doubt | Num. 233 |
| 2. To the Second Doubt | Num. 237 |
| 3. Objections against the Solution of the Second Doubt and their Solution |
| a. First Objection | Num. 239 |
| b. Three Other Objections | |
| α. Exposition of the Objections | Num. 248 |
| β. Solution to the First Objection | Num. 251 |
| γ. Solution to the Second Objection | Num. 252 |
| δ. Solution to the Third Objection | Num. 268 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | |
| A. To the First | Num. 274 |
| B. To the Second Argument | |
| 1. Response to the Argument | Num. 283 |
| 2. A Doubt and its Solution | Num. 291 |
| C. To the Third Argument | Num. 299 |
| D. To the Fourth | Num. 303 |
| E. To the Fifth | Num. 310 |
Third Part: About Change in the Accidents
First Article: About Possible Change of the Accidents while the Eucharist Remains
| Question One: Whether Every Change that Could be Caused by a Created Agent in the Accidents in the Persisting Eucharist Necessarily Requires the Persistence of the Same Quantity | Num. 322 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Opinion of Godfrey of Fontaines | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion Expressed in Two Conclusions | Num. 328 |
| 2. Two Reasons for the First Conclusion | Num. 332 |
| 3. Three Reasons for the Second Conclusion | Num. 338 |
| B. Rejection of the Opinion | |
| 1. About the First Conclusion | |
| a. The Falsity of it in Itself is Shown | Num. 349 |
| b. Again, from the Statements of Him who Holds the Opinion | Num. 356 |
| c. About the Two Reasons Adduced for the First Conclusion | |
| α. About the First Reason | Num. 358 |
| β. About the Second Reason | Num. 362 |
| 2. About the Second Conclusion | Num. 366 |
| a. About the First Contrary Reason and its Solution | Num. 367 |
| b. About the Second Contrary Reason and its Solution | Num. 376 |
| c. About the Third Contrary Reason and its Solution | Num. 379 |
| d. About the Three Reasons Adduced for the Second Conclusion | Num. 380 |
| e. About the Statement Added in Exposition of the Second Conclusion | Num. 383 |
| C. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 384 |
| 1. About the First Change | Num. 385 |
| 2. About the Second Change | Num. 386 |
| 3. About the Third and Fourth Change | Num. 390 |
| a. About the Third | Num. 391 |
| b. About the Fourth Change | Num. 410 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 418 |
| Question Two: Whether Change Corruptive of the Accidents is Possible in the Eucharist | Num. 421 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. Opinion of Thomas Aquinas and Rejection of it | Num. 428 |
| B. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 432 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 440 |
Second Article: About Change with which the Eucharist does not Remain
| Single Question: Whether in Any Change Made in the Eucharist Some Subject Must Return by Divine Action | Num. 444 |
| I. To the Question | |
| A. First Opinion, which is from Pope Innocent III | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 451 |
| 2. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 455 |
| B. Second Opinion, which is that of Thomas Aquinas | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 463 |
| 2. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 466 |
| C. Third Opinion, which is that of Giles of Rome and Henry of Ghent | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 473 |
| 2. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 475 |
| D. Fourth Opinion, which is that of Richard of Middleton | |
| 1. Exposition of the Opinion | Num. 485 |
| 2. Rejection of the Opinion | Num. 487 |
| E. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 490 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 503 |
Thirteenth Distinction
On the Efficient Cause of the Consecration of the Eucharist
| Division of the Question | Num. 1 |
| Question One: Whether the body of Christ is confected only by divine act | Num. 6 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 17 |
| A. Whether the Eucharist can be Confected by Divine Action | Num. 18 |
| 1. The Opinion of Others | Num. 20 |
| 2. Scotus’ own Opinion | |
| a. Action is not anything Absolute | Num. 27 |
| b. Action cannot be posited to be an absolute Form contemporaneous with that in which it is | Num. 36 |
| c. Action is an Extrinsic Respect added to a Thing | Num. 41 |
| d. Five Meanings of ‘Action’ | Num. 56 |
| α. On the first four Meanings of ‘Action’ | Num. 61 |
| β. On the fifth Meaning | Num. 64 |
| e. What must be said if the Category of Action is transferred to Divine Reality | Num. 72 |
| 3. To the Arguments for the Opinion of others | |
| a. To the first Argument | Num. 83 |
| b. To the Second Argument | Num. 89 |
| c. To the Third Argument | Num. 91 |
| d. To the Fourth Argument | Num. 93 |
| e. To the Fifth Argument | Num. 102 |
| 4. To the Statements about God’s Extrinsic and Intrinsic Action | Num. 109 |
| B. Whether the Eucharist can be confected by the Action of a Created Agent as the Principal Agent | |
| 1. A Possible Opinion | Num. 115 |
| 2. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 118 |
| C. Whether the Eucharist can be Confected by the Action of a Creature as Instrumental Agent | |
| 1. First Principal Objection, or the Opinion of Thomas against this Third Article | |
| a. Exposition of the Objection | Num.129 |
| b. Objections or Rejection of the Opinion | |
| α. Against the Responses to the Objections | Num. 134 |
| β. Against the Objection’s and the Opinion’s Conclusion | Num. 138 |
| γ. To the Arguments for the Objection | Num. 142 |
| 2. Second Principal Objection of Thomas to the Third Article and its Rejection | Num. 146 |
| 3. Scotus’ own Opinion | Num. 149 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 152 |
| Question Two: Whether Any Priest who Pronounces the Words of Consecration with Due Intention and over Fitting Matter can Confect the Eucharist | Num. 161 |
| I. To the Question | Num. 169 |
| A. About the Power to Confect Simply | Num. 171 |
| B. About the Power to Confect in the Way Ordained | Num. 183 |
| 1. About the Things Required on the Part of the Minister | Num. 185 |
| a. About the Removal of Impediments | Num. 186 |
| b. About the Applying of Things Fitting | Num. 195 |
| c. About Penalties Against Ministers who Behave Otherwise | Num. 197 |
| 2. About the Things Required on the Part of the Place | Num. 211 |
| a. About Place Properly Speaking | Num. 212 |
| b. About Movable Place or Vessels | Num. 219 |
| 3. About Penalties for Him who Celebrates without these Requirements | Num. 225 |
| C. About the Necessity of Having a Respondent in the Celebration of the Mass | Num. 231 |
| II. To the Initial Arguments | Num. 232 |
