Dist. 1, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1
Quaestio II. De Sacramentorum significatione.
Secundo quaeritur de Sacramentis quantum ad significationem; et quod significatio sit de essentia sive integritate Sacramenti, ostenditur:
1. Primo per definitionem sive notificationem, quam Magister ponit in littera1: «Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum».
2. Item, Hugo in libro de Sacramentis2: «Sacramentum est materiale elementum ex similitudine repraesentans, ex institutione significans»: ergo Sacramentum esse suum habet ex institutione et est institutum ad significandum: ergo significare est ei essentiale.
3. Item, Sacramenta instituta sunt «ad nostram eruditionem», secundum quod Hugo3 dicit, et Magister tangit in littera; sed non ad eruditionem corporalium: ergo ad eruditionem spiritualium. Sed Sacramenta sunt corporalia et non ducunt in spiritualia nisi in ratione significandi, quia offerendo se sensibus aliud faciunt in cognitionem venire: ergo etc.
4. Item, Sacramentum est elementum; aut ergo purum elementum corporale, aut etiam simul cum hoc dicit aliquid spirituale. Non purum corporale, hoc constat: ergo cum hoc dicit aliquid spirituale. Illud ergo spirituale aut unitur ei secundum veritatem, aut secundum intentionem; sed non secundum veritatem — illud constat, cum non sit capax sicut infra4 probabitur — ergo secundum intentionem. Sed uniri secundum intentionem est uniri, sicut signatum unitur signo: ergo de Sacramentorum integritate est ipsa significatio.
Contra: 1. Sacramenta principaliter sunt instituta ad curandum; sed ad hoc, quod aliqua medicina sit curativa, nihil facit, quod curationem significet, sed sufficit solum, quod curet: ergo Sacramentum potest esse perfecta medicina etiam sine significatione: ergo significatio non est de integritate Sacramenti.
2. Item, si Sacramentum est medicina, Sacramentum aliquo modo est causa; sed causa non est signum effectus, immo magis signatum5: ergo Sacramenti potius est significari quam significare.
3. Item, si signum est de integritate Sacramenti; ergo quod non significat non est Sacramentum, et quod non significat huic, ei cui non significat, non est Sacramentum; sed Sacramentum baptismi nihil significat parvulo: ergo parvulo non est Sacramentum: ergo dum parvulus recipit baptismum, non recipit Sacramentum. Sed hoc est absurdum6: ergo signum non est de integritate Sacramenti.
4. Item, si signum, aut ergo demonstrativum, aut prognosticum, aut rememorativum; non potest esse nisi demonstrativum, quoniam efficit quod figurat, vel saltem, si non efficit, cum signum et signatum sint relativa, sunt simul natura: ergo si signum est praesens, et signatum7. Sed demonstrativum non est, ut videtur, quia, si hoc — cum demonstret inesse gratiam, et non insit — tunc videtur esse falsum signum: ergo et falsum Sacramentum.
5. Item, si signum est, aut est naturale, aut voluntarium8. Si naturale: ergo Sacramenta sunt a natura; et si hoc — cum illud quod est naturale, sit idem apud omnes — tunc ergo et Sacramentum; quod certum est esse falsum. Si voluntarium: ergo cum voluntaria augeantur et minuantur tota die, sicut patet in dictionibus, ergo pari ratione videtur, quod Sacramenta possint mutari pro voto. — Si tu dicas, quod sunt signa voluntaria, quia9 a voluntate divina; sed talia sunt cetera creata, et omne quod est sub caelo: ergo non debent dici propter hoc signa voluntaria; aut si hoc, tunc pari ratione cetera alia creata.
Conclusio.
Significatio est de essentia Sacramentorum.
Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam est notandum, quod sacramentalis medicina de sua integritate habet significationem, et haec communis est et essentialis omnibus Sacramentis.
Ratio autem huius, ut credo, haec est: quoniam sacramentalis medicina est sufficiens10 medicamen; quoniam igitur homo lapsus non tantum lapsus est in pronitatem concupiscentiae, sed etiam in caecitatem ignorantiae: ideo, ut in utroque curetur per Sacramentum, non tantum debet habere Sacramentum quid gratuitum, sed etiam mysticum11, et ita figurativum et significativum. — Rursus, quia est sufficiens medicina de se, fert secum suum praeparatorium. Unde sicut medicina corporalis non prodest, nisi praeparetur suscipiens, sic necesse est fieri spiritualiter; et quoniam fides disponit hominem, ut ei sint salutifera Sacramenta; et motus fidei excitatur per exhibitionem signi, ut requirat signatum; et per hoc homo disponitur ad curationem: ideo tanquam medicina efficax et sufficiens sacramentalis medicina habet significationem de sua integritate; et ita, essentialiter loquendo, Sacramentum est signum.
1. Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum argumentum, quod obiicit de medicina corporali: quoniam non est simile, ut iam patet.
2. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod causa non est signum effectus: dicendum, quod illud verum est, quando habitudo signandi consequitur habitudinem causandi; in Sacramentis autem antecedit. — Vel aliter dicendum, quod hoc verum est in his quae habent vere ac proprie rationem causae et effectus; vera
enim causa natura prior est12, et ideo a sensibus nostris remotior; et quia significatio est per id quod est nobis propinquum, ideo significamus causam per effectum, non e converso. Sed hoc non est verum in proposito. Quia enim Sacramentum non habet vere rationem causae, nec gratia rationem effectus13; ideo gratia sublimior est et a sensibus nostris remotior, et corporale nobis est propinquius: ideo recte per illud gratia significatur, non e converso. Propositio vero illa locum habet in vera causa.
3. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod Sacramentum non significat parvulo; dicendum, quod signum duplicem habet comparationem: et ad illud quod significat, et ad illud cui significat; et prima est essentialis et habet ipsam semper in actu, secundam autem habet in habitu; et a prima dicitur signum, non a secunda. Unde circulus super tabernam14 semper est signum, etiam si nullus aspiciat; sic Sacramentum semper signum est, quamvis nullus cognoscat. Sed tamen adhuc non solvitur, quia, quamvis sit signum, non tamen significat huic. Ideo dicendum, quod sicut parvulo sufficit fides aliena15, ita sufficit, quod significetur ipsi parvulo in alio: unde quamvis non significet ei in se, significat tamen in alio.
4. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quo genere signi continetur; dicendum, quod aliqua Sacramenta significaverunt quod futurum erat, ut legalia; aliqua quod praeteritum, ut Sacramenta nostra, quae significant passionem praeteritam, sicut dicit Glossa super illud ad Romanos sexto16: Consepulti estis etc.: «Quidquid gestum est in cruce Christi, in his non tantum dictis, sed etiam gestis figuratur»; loquitur de Sacramentis. Sunt etiam signa demonstrativa, quia significant quod donant; unde duplicem habent significationem, propriam scilicet et allegoricam: propriam respectu praesentis, sed allegoricam respectu praeteriti. — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod signum et signatum simul sunt natura; dicendum, quod verum est sub ratione signi, non autem oportet, quod simul sub ratione rei substratae17, quoniam haec intentio signorum non ponit, nisi apud rem esse animam. — Similiter, quod obiicitur, quod si sunt demonstrativa, tunc sunt falsa; dicendum, quod signum duplicem habet veritatem, ut dicit Anselmus18: unam ab institutione, aliam ab usu. Ab institutione, quia imposita est ad hoc significandum; et haec veritas non potest permutari. Alia veritas est secundum usum, scilicet quando significat illud, ad quod est instituta per usum, et hanc veritatem amittit. Signum igitur sacramentale quantum ad primam semper est verum; similiter quantum ad secundam semper est verum, quantum est ex parte sui sive etiam dantis, sed impeditur solum a parte suscipientis: ideo Sacramentum non falsificatur, sed male recipiens falsus et fictus iudicatur.
5. Ad illud quod obiicitur, quod non est naturale nec voluntarium; dicendum, quod Sacramentum habilitatem ad significandum habet ex natura, sed actualitatem habet ex institutione. Unde Hugo19 dicit, quod «tria sunt in Sacramento: similitudo ex creatione, significatio ex institutione, sanctificatio ex benedictione. Prima est indita per Creatorem, secunda adiuncta per Salvatorem, tertia administrata per dispensatorem». — Quod ergo obiicitur, quod est Deo voluntarium nobis est naturale; dicendum, quod verum est, si det rei illud non solum, ut in ea sit, sed etiam ut sit ab ea, ita quod sit a principiis subiecti; et quia talis ratio non est in Sacramentis, ideo vere et proprie sunt voluntaria. — Et sic patet, quod sunt signa, et qualiter significant20.
---
Question II. On the signification of the Sacraments.
In the second place inquiry is made concerning the Sacraments with respect to signification; and that signification belongs to the essence or integrity of a Sacrament is shown as follows:
1. First, by the definition or description which the Master sets down in the text1: "A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing."
2. Likewise, Hugh in the book On the Sacraments2: "A Sacrament is a material element representing by likeness, signifying by institution": therefore a Sacrament has its being from institution and is instituted in order to signify: therefore to signify is essential to it.
3. Likewise, the Sacraments were instituted "for our instruction," as Hugh3 says, and the Master touches upon in the text; but not for the instruction of corporeal things: therefore for the instruction of spiritual things. But the Sacraments are corporeal and do not lead into spiritual things except by way of signifying, because by offering themselves to the senses they cause something else to come into knowledge: therefore etc.
4. Likewise, a Sacrament is an element; either therefore a pure corporeal element, or one that together with this also says something spiritual. Not purely corporeal, this is established: therefore together with this it says something spiritual. That spiritual thing, therefore, is either united to it according to truth, or according to intention; but not according to truth — this is established, since it is not capable of it, as will be proved below4 — therefore according to intention. But to be united according to intention is to be united as the thing signified is united to the sign: therefore signification itself belongs to the integrity of the Sacraments.
On the contrary: 1. The Sacraments are principally instituted for healing; but for some medicine to be curative, the fact that it signifies the cure contributes nothing, but it suffices only that it cure: therefore a Sacrament can be a perfect medicine even without signification: therefore signification does not belong to the integrity of a Sacrament.
2. Likewise, if a Sacrament is a medicine, a Sacrament is in some way a cause; but a cause is not the sign of an effect, but rather the thing signified5: therefore it belongs to a Sacrament rather to be signified than to signify.
3. Likewise, if a sign belongs to the integrity of a Sacrament; therefore what does not signify is not a Sacrament, and what does not signify to someone, to the one to whom it does not signify, is not a Sacrament; but the Sacrament of baptism signifies nothing to an infant: therefore to an infant it is not a Sacrament: therefore while an infant receives baptism, he does not receive a Sacrament. But this is absurd6: therefore a sign does not belong to the integrity of a Sacrament.
4. Likewise, if it is a sign, then it is either demonstrative, or prognostic, or commemorative; it cannot be anything but demonstrative, since it effects what it figures, or at least, if it does not effect it, since sign and thing signified are relatives, they are simultaneous by nature: therefore if the sign is present, so also is the thing signified7. But it is not demonstrative, as it seems, because, if it were this — since it would demonstrate grace to be present, and yet it not be present — then it would seem to be a false sign: therefore also a false Sacrament.
5. Likewise, if it is a sign, it is either natural or voluntary8. If natural: therefore the Sacraments are from nature; and if this — since what is natural is the same among all — then therefore the Sacrament also is; which is certainly false. If voluntary: therefore, since voluntary things are increased and diminished all day long, as is evident in expressions, therefore by the same reasoning it seems that the Sacraments can be changed at will. — If you should say that they are voluntary signs because9 they are from the divine will; but so too are the other created things, and everything that is under heaven: therefore on this account they ought not to be called voluntary signs; or if so, then by the same reasoning the other created things also.
Conclusion.
Signification belongs to the essence of the Sacraments.
I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing it must be noted that sacramental medicine has signification of its integrity, and this is common and essential to all the Sacraments.
Now the reason for this, as I believe, is this: that sacramental medicine is a sufficient10 remedy; since therefore fallen man has fallen not only into the proneness of concupiscence, but also into the blindness of ignorance: therefore, in order that he be healed in both by the Sacrament, the Sacrament ought to have not only something gratuitous, but also something mystical11, and thus figurative and significative. — Again, since it is a sufficient medicine of itself, it carries with it its own preparatory. Hence, just as bodily medicine does not profit unless the recipient is prepared, so it is necessary that it be done spiritually; and since faith disposes a man, so that the Sacraments are salutary to him; and the movement of faith is aroused through the exhibition of the sign, so that it seeks the thing signified; and through this a man is disposed to healing: therefore, as an efficacious and sufficient medicine, sacramental medicine has signification of its integrity; and thus, speaking essentially, a Sacrament is a sign.
1. And through this is evident the response to the first argument, which objects concerning bodily medicine: since it is not similar, as is now evident.
2. To that which is objected, that a cause is not the sign of an effect: it must be said that this is true when the relation of signifying follows the relation of causing; but in the Sacraments it precedes. — Or otherwise it must be said that this is true in those things which have truly and properly the character of cause and effect; for a true
cause is prior by nature12, and therefore more remote from our senses; and because signification is through that which is near to us, we therefore signify the cause through the effect, not the reverse. But this is not true in the matter at hand. For since the Sacrament does not truly have the character of cause, nor grace the character of effect13; therefore grace is more sublime and more remote from our senses, and the corporeal is nearer to us: therefore rightly is grace signified through it, not the reverse. But that proposition holds in the case of a true cause.
3. To that which is objected, that a Sacrament does not signify to an infant; it must be said that a sign has a twofold relation: both to that which it signifies, and to that to whom it signifies; and the first is essential and has it always in act, but the second it has in habit; and from the first it is called a sign, not from the second. Hence the hoop over a tavern14 is always a sign, even if no one looks at it; so a Sacrament is always a sign, although no one knows it. But still it is not yet resolved, because, although it is a sign, nevertheless it does not signify to this one. Therefore it must be said that, just as another's faith suffices for the infant15, so it suffices that it be signified to the infant himself in another: hence although it does not signify to him in itself, it nevertheless signifies in another.
4. To that which is objected, under which genus of sign it is contained; it must be said that some Sacraments signified what was future, as the legal ones; some what was past, as our Sacraments, which signify the past Passion, as the Gloss says upon that text to the Romans, chapter six16: You are buried together etc.: "Whatever was done on the cross of Christ is figured in these things not only as spoken, but also as enacted"; it speaks of the Sacraments. They are also demonstrative signs, because they signify what they give; hence they have a twofold signification, namely proper and allegorical: proper with respect to the present, but allegorical with respect to the past. — As to what is therefore objected, that sign and thing signified are simultaneous by nature; it must be said that this is true under the character of sign, but it is not necessary that they be simultaneous under the character of the underlying thing17, since this intention of signs does not posit it, except that the soul be present to the thing. — Likewise, as to what is objected, that if they are demonstrative, then they are false; it must be said that a sign has a twofold truth, as Anselm says18: one from institution, the other from use. From institution, because it is imposed for signifying this; and this truth cannot be changed. The other truth is according to use, namely when it signifies that for which it was instituted, through use, and this truth it loses. The sacramental sign therefore, as to the first, is always true; likewise as to the second it is always true, so far as it is on the part of itself or even of the giver, but it is impeded only on the part of the recipient: therefore the Sacrament is not falsified, but the one who receives badly is judged false and feigned.
5. To that which is objected, that it is neither natural nor voluntary; it must be said that a Sacrament has the aptitude for signifying from nature, but it has the actuality from institution. Hence Hugh19 says that "there are three things in a Sacrament: likeness from creation, signification from institution, sanctification from benediction. The first is bestowed by the Creator, the second adjoined by the Savior, the third administered by the dispenser." — As to what is therefore objected, that what is voluntary to God is natural to us; it must be said that this is true, if He gives the thing that not only so that it be in it, but also that it be from it, so that it be from the principles of the subject; and because such a ground is not in the Sacraments, therefore they are truly and properly voluntary. — And thus it is evident that they are signs, and in what manner they signify20.
---
- 1Hic c. 2.Here, c. 2.
- 2Libr. I. p. IX. c. 2. — Cod. B cum textu originali post materiale addit vel corporale foris visibiliter [textus originalis sensibiliter] propositum, et in fine ex sanctificatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritualem gratiam. In fine arg. pro essentiale cod. II naturale. — Notamus hic semel pro seqq., quod codd. passim inter se dissentiunt in usu verborum signare, signatum, signatio et significare, significatum, significatio. Nos pro opportunitate has formas eligemus.Book I, p. IX, c. 2. — Codex B, with the original text, after material adds or corporeal, set forth outwardly in a visible way [the original text: in a sensible way], and at the end containing by sanctification some invisible and spiritual grace. At the end of the argument, for essential codex II reads natural. — We note here once for what follows, that the codices throughout disagree among themselves in the use of the words to signate, signated, signation and to signify, signified, signification. We for convenience shall choose these forms.
- 3Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1. et I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 3. — De Magistro vide hic c. 5. — In fine arg. respicitur definitio signi ab August. data et a Magistro hic in lit. c. 3. allata.Summa Sententiarum, tr. 4, c. 1, and On the Sacraments, Book I, p. IX, c. 3. — Concerning the Master, see here c. 5. — At the end of the argument is regarded the definition of a sign given by Augustine and cited by the Master here in the text, c. 3.
- 4Quaest. 4. — Inferius post est codd. omittunt uniri.Question 4. — Below, after est, the codices omit uniri.
- 5Aristot., de Divinat. per somnum c. 1: Dico autem causam quidem, ut lunam defectus solis, et laborem febris; signum vero defectus stellam subintrare, asperitatem vero linguae febriendi.Aristotle, On Divination through Sleep, c. 1: "I call a cause, for instance, the moon of an eclipse of the sun, and exertion of a fever; but a sign, for instance, a star's slipping under [the moon] of the eclipse, and roughness of the tongue of being feverish."
- 6Cfr. infra d. 4. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. seqq. — Superius pro huic cod. aa hoc.Cf. below, d. 4, p. II, a. 2, q. 1 and following. — Above, for huic codex aa reads hoc.
- 7Boeth., V. de Consol. prosa 4: Omne etenim signum tantum quid sit ostendit, non vero efficit quod designat. — Aristot., de Praedicam. c. De his quae ad aliquid (relativis) ait: Videntur autem ipsa ad aliquid simul esse natura etc. — In principio arg. post Item, si edd. supplent Sacramentum est, codd. K aa est.Boethius, On the Consolation, Book V, prose 4: "For every sign shows only that a thing is, but does not effect what it designates." — Aristotle, Categories, in the chapter "On those things which are toward something" (relatives), says: "Relatives seem to be simultaneous by nature," etc. — At the beginning of the argument, after Item, si the editions supply Sacramentum est, codices K aa est.
- 8Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Infra respiciuntur verba Boeth., de Divisione: Nam quod apud omnes idem est naturae est etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 818, nota 1. — Aliquanto inferius post in dictionibus, pro quo ed. 1 inductionibus, Vat. addit vel terminis.Cf. here the text of the Master, c. 4. — Below are regarded the words of Boethius, On Division: "For what is the same among all is of nature," etc. Cf. tom. III, p. 818, note 1. — Somewhat further below, after in dictionibus, for which ed. 1 reads inductionibus, the Vatican edition adds or terms.
- 9Edd. supplent sunt, et subinde pro sed talia sunt substituunt sed cum talia sint, cod. I contra, sed talia sunt.The editions supply sunt, and accordingly for sed talia sunt substitute sed cum talia sint; codex I, on the contrary, sed talia sunt.
- 10Cod. X bene efficax et sufficiens.Codex X well [reads] efficacious and sufficient.
- 11Cfr. infra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 3. in corp.Cf. below, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 3, in the body.
- 12Edd. supplent effectu. — Aristot., II. Poster. c. 17. (c. 14.): Causa enim prius est eo, cuius est causa. Et 1. Phys. text. 2. (c. 1.): Innata autem est ex notioribus nobis via et manifestioribus ad manifestiora naturae et notiora; non enim sunt eadem et nobis nota et simpliciter. Quapropter necesse est ad hunc modum procedere ex immanifestioribus quidem naturae, nobis autem manifestioribus ad manifestiora naturae et notiora.The editions supply effectu. — Aristotle, Posterior Analytics II, c. 17 (c. 14): "For a cause is prior to that of which it is the cause." And Physics I, text 2 (c. 1): "The way is by nature from the things more knowable to us and more manifest, toward the things more manifest and more knowable by nature; for the same things are not knowable both to us and without qualification. Wherefore it is necessary to proceed in this manner, from the things less manifest by nature but more manifest to us, toward the things more manifest and knowable by nature."
- 13Cfr. infra q. 1. — Inferius pro et corporale edd. et etiam quia corporale. Eaedem edd. in fine solut. addunt sicut est sol et luna. Pro Propositio vero codd. E K L M X aa Propositio igitur.Cf. below, q. 1. — Below, for et corporale the editions read et etiam quia corporale. The same editions at the end of the solution add as are the sun and moon. For Propositio vero codices E K L M X aa read Propositio igitur.
- 14Vide infra p. II. a. 1. q. 2. et d. 4. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Exemplum de circulo iam occurrit in Hug. a S. Vict., Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1. — Post Unde cod. Z addit sicut.See below, p. II, a. 1, q. 2, and d. 4, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — The example of the hoop already occurs in Hugh of St. Victor, Summa Sententiarum, tr. 4, c. 1. — After Unde codex Z adds sicut.
- 15Vers. 4. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum, sumta est ex August., Enchirid. c. 53. n. 14: Quidquid igitur gestum est in cruce Christi, in sepultura, in resurrectione tertio die, in ascensione in caelum, in sede ad dexteram Patris, ita gestum est, ut his rebus non mystice tantum dictis, sed etiam gestis configuraretur vita christiana, quae hic geritur. — Inferius pro quod donant, quod exhibent codd. G I Vbb, alii cum edd. quod donatur.Verse 4. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary one in Strabo and Lyra, is taken from Augustine, Enchiridion c. 53, n. 14: "Whatever therefore was done on the cross of Christ, in the burial, in the resurrection on the third day, in the ascension into heaven, in the seat at the right hand of the Father, was so done that by these things — said not only mystically but also enacted — the Christian life that is led here might be configured." — Below, for quod donant, codices G I Vbb [read] quod exhibent, others with the editions quod donatur.
- 16Ed. 1 significatae, Vat. autem addit id est denominatae.Ed. 1 [reads] significatae, but the Vatican edition adds that is, denominated.
- 17Dialog. de Veritate c. 2. ubi solvens hanc quaestionem utrum enuntiatio vera et recta sit, cum significat esse quod non est, ait: «Vera quidem non solet dici, cum significat esse quod non est; veritatem tamen et rectitudinem habet, quia facit quod debet: Sed cum significat esse quod est, dupliciter facit quod debet, quoniam significat et quod accepit significare et ad quod facta est... Alia igitur est rectitudo et veritas enuntiationis, quia significat ad quod significandum facta est, alia vero, quia significat quod accepit significare. Quippe ista immutabilis est ipsi orationi, illa vero mutabilis; hanc namque semper habet, illam vero non semper; istam enim naturaliter habet, illam vero accidentaliter et secundum usum» etc. In fine capituli notatur, quod praedicta ratio veritatis consideranda est in omnibus signis. — Inferius pro imposita et instituta Vat. impositum et institutum.Dialogue on Truth, c. 2, where, in resolving this question — whether an utterance is true and right when it signifies to be what is not — he says: "It is not indeed wont to be called true when it signifies to be what is not; yet it has truth and rightness, because it does what it ought: But when it signifies to be what is, it does what it ought in two ways, since it signifies both what it received to signify and that for which it was made... There is therefore one rightness and truth of an utterance, because it signifies that for the signifying of which it was made, and another, because it signifies what it received to signify. Indeed the former is unchangeable to the utterance itself, but the latter changeable; for it always has the former, but not always the latter; for it has the former naturally, but the latter accidentally and according to use," etc. At the end of the chapter it is noted that the aforesaid account of truth is to be considered in all signs. — Below, for imposita et instituta the Vatican edition [reads] impositum et institutum.
- 18Cfr. infra d. 4. p. I. a. 2. q. 2. seq.Cf. below, d. 4, p. I, a. 2, q. 2 and following.
- 19Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2.On the Sacraments, Book I, p. IX, c. 2.
- 20Vide scolion ad praecedentem quaest.See the scholion to the preceding question.