Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 1, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 5

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1

Textus Latinus

p. 24

Quaestio V. De differentia inter Sacramenta vetera et nova.

Quinto quaeritur de differentia Sacramentorum novae legis et veteris; et assignat Magister¹ hanc differentiam: «quia illa tantum promittebant gratiam et non dabant, haec autem dant». Unde communiter assignatur differentia, quod Sacramenta novae legis efficiunt quod figurant, sed veteris non.

1. Contra haec sic obiicit Hugo in libro de Sacramentis²: «Sacramentorum alia sub natura, alia sub Lege, alia sub gratia, alia quidem in specie, sed eundem effectum sanitatis habentia».

2. Item, Hugo³: «Ex quo homo aegrotare coepit, Deus reparando in Sacramentis suis medicinam praeparavit»; sed impossibile est, mederi Deum sine gratia iustificante: ergo in omnibus Sacramentis est gratia iustificans, et sic nulla differentia.

3. Item, per rationem videtur: quia semper decuit, ut curreret medicina cum morbo⁴, quia semper et in omni lege aliqui sunt salvati; sed Sacramentum non est medicina, nisi curet per gratiam: ergo in omni tempore Sacramenta contulerunt gratiam: et sic etc.

p. 25

4. Item, Sacramenta novae legis non habent efficaciam nisi per gratiam fidei, quia qui infidelis est ficte accedit et non reportat commodum; sed Sacramenta illa coniuncta fidei iustificabant, quia omne opus, nisi sit secundum se malum, quando est a fide operante per dilectionem, fit meritorium⁵: ergo sicut ista iustificant, sic et illa.

Contra: 1. Hugo in libro de Sacramentis⁶: «Tempore legis naturae relictus est homo sibi, et sibi relictus erravit per ignorantiam, et ideo convictus est de caecitate; postmodum data est lex vetus sine gratia, in qua quid esset faciendum cognovit, sed concupiscentia pressus cecidit; et sic est victus de impotentia; et tunc venit Christus», de quo Ioannis primo: Gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est: ergo Sacramenta tempore legis veteris non conferebant aliquam gratiam: ergo etc.

2. Item, super illud ad Romanos tertio⁷: Ex operibus Legis; Glossa: «Opera Legis dicuntur, quae cum Lege instituta et terminata sunt, quae nunquam iustificare potuerunt, etiam si in fide et caritate fierent».

3. Item, super illud Isaiae primo⁸: Sanguinem hircorum nolui; Glossa: «Praeterito utens, ostendit, se nunquam sacrificia Iudaeorum amasse».

4. Item, ratione videtur: quia lex vetus data est in onus; unde Ezechielis vigesimo⁹: Dedi eis praecepta non bona et verba, in quibus non vivent; sed si haberent Sacramenta dantia gratiam, alleviarent; et beatus Petrus, Actuum decimo quinto: Hoc est onus, quod nec nos nec patres nostri portare potuimus: ergo etc.

Conclusio. Sacramenta novae legis per se iustificant et gratiam conferunt ex opere operato, quod non faciebant Sacramenta legis veteris nisi per accidens.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod istam differentiam aliter intellexit Hugo, aliter intellexit Pictaviensis et Magister.

Magister¹⁰ enim, secutus Pictaviensem, dixit, quod Sacramenta veteris legis, excepta circumcisione, instituta essent ad significandum tantum in perfectis viris et fidelibus; quia aliis erant instituta vel in onus, si duri erant, vel ad revocandum ab idololatria; et si ad aliquam fuerunt efficaciam¹¹ ordinata, hoc fuit solum, ut absolverent ab irregularitate carnali vel poena temporali, ut baptismata et sacrificia. Et quia solum ad hoc instituta erant, etiam si ex fide et caritate fierent, non erat in eis meritum, quia non se extendebant ultra id, ad quod erant. Unde sicut motus caritatis non erit in patria meritorius, sic tunc non merebantur in opere exteriori, sed tantum in interiori. Et si tu obiicias ei de medicina, dicit, quod fides Redemptoris fuit medicina pro tempore illo; illa vero non iustificabant nec per se nec per accidens. Et huius positionis fuit Pictaviensis. — Sed haec positio magistro Hugoni non videbatur rationabilis, quia tunc sacrificia facta a viris sanctis non placuissent Deo nec sacrificium Abel nec Abraham nec Salomonis; quod manifeste falsum est, sicut patet in narratione canonis¹². Et quid etiam de oblatione sacrae Virginis, cum obtulit par turturum, nunquid a merito vacua fuit?

Propter hoc aliter Magister Hugo voluit dicere, quod¹³ Sacramenta veteris legis, excepta circumcisione, p. 26instituta fuerunt primo ad significandum vel passionem, ut sacrificia, vel etiam nostra Sacramenta, ut baptismus eorum nostrum; et ad efficiendum non sunt instituta nisi solum exterius circa carnem. Sed quia significant quod fides credit, in eorum perceptione est professio fidei, non tantum verbo¹⁴, sed et facto; et quia talis fides disponebat ad iustificationem, ideo Sacramenta illa per accidens iustificabant. Sed novae legis Sacramenta non solum ex prima sua institutione ordinata sunt ad significandum, sed etiam ad gratiam obtinendam, et ideo¹⁵ per se ordinata sunt ad iustificationem; ideo, per se loquendo, ista iustificant, illa non nisi per accidens. — Et huius signum est, quod Sacramenta veteris legis principaliter significant id quod credendum est, ut Christi passionem et per posterius iustificationem; excepta sola circumcisione, quae principaliter significat amotionem originalis. Sed Sacramenta novae legis e contrario primo significant gratiae efficaciam et per posterius passionem, sive id quod est credendum, ut baptismus interiorem ablutionem et passionem. Unde Hugo¹⁶: «Sacramenta novi Testamenti primo loco spiritualis gratiae signa sunt et ad ipsam gratiam sanctificandis conferendam principaliter instituta. Illa vero signa horum tantum erant, et mediantibus his gratiam in sustentationem contulerunt»; mediantibus his, id est fide istorum, quia non erant in re, sed in fide.

Et has opiniones tanquam rationabiles concordant aliqui magistri moderni temporis dicentes, Magistrum locutum esse, quod illa non iustificabant per se¹⁷, sed Hugo per accidens; ideo non est contradictio. — Sunt etiam alii, qui dicunt idem ipsum aliis verbis, quod ista iustificant ratione operis operati, sed illa ratione operis operantis, non operati; et opus operans est fides, sed operatum exterius est Sacramentum; et quod iustificarent¹⁸, hoc est ratione fidei et caritatis coniunctae.

Sed si quis attendat, hae positiones directe sibi contradicunt. Primum quidem, quia Magister non solum dicit, quod illa Sacramenta non iustificabant, sed etiam, quod non iustificabant¹⁹, etiam si in fide et caritate fierent; et sic nec per se nec per accidens. Rursus, uterque loquitur de his, in quantum sunt Sacramenta; et constat, quod opus operans non est Sacramentum, sed opus operatum: ergo uterque intellexit de operato; et illud verum est, et de illo opere operato dixit Magister²⁰, quod solum significabat, non iustificabat, sicut aspersio aquae vel sanguinis. Nunquam enim iustificabat sanguis hircorum aspersus, etiam si in fide et caritate fieret, et hoc nec per se nec per accidens; et hoc satis fuit probabile.

Sed certe multo probabilius est quod magister Hugo posuit, quod cum in illo opere operato esset professio fidei facto²¹, quod ratione fidei coniunctae erat in illis primo et per illa, per accidens tamen, iustificatio. Sed in hoc est differentia ipsorum ad nova, quod in Sacramentis novae legis quantum ad opera operata est iustificatio non tantum per accidens, sed etiam per se. Huius autem signum evidens praeostensum est in modo significandi horum Sacramentorum et illorum. — Si vero quaeratur ratio, unde hoc est; responsio est ex praedictis²², quia causalitas Sacramentorum non est aliud quam quaedam efficax ordinatio ad recipiendam gratiam ex pactione divina; hoc autem fuit solum in Sacramentis novae legis, et non veteris nisi in circumcisione, quia ibi fuit pactio. — Quare autem in istis est pactio et ordinatio, in illis non; patet: quia tunc fuit tempus figurae et vincendi duritiam²³, modo est tempus gratiae.

Ad argumenta: Ex his patent obiecta ad utramque partem; nam illa quae probant, quod non iustificant, intelliguntur per se loquendo; alia vero ad oppositum, per accidens.

Scholion

I. Sententia Magistri et Pictaviensis, quod Sacramenta veteris legis nullo modo, id est nec ut opus operans, licet fiat in fide et caritate, nec ut opus operatum sive vi Sacramenti, fuissent meritoria et iustificantia, communissime ut falsa reicitur. Sed nec altera opinio Hugonis, quod scilicet utroque modo iustificassent, ita tamen ut ex opere operato hoc fieret tantum per accidens, quatenus essent figura Christi venturi (unde actualis susceptio erat quaedam professio et veneratio Christi), pluribus auctoribus placet. Nolunt enim hi concedere, eadem per modum Sacramenti iustificare, licet fiat per accidens; sed media quadam via inter utramque opinionem incedentes docent, eadem iustificare tantum per modum operis operantis, id est per fidem sive suscipientis sive applicantis, dummodo haec non tantum in signo, sed etiam in corde fuerit (cfr. infra p. II. a. 1. q. 2.). — Plurimi alii autem de circumcisione aliter iudicandum censent, de quo cfr. infra p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — Locutio ex opere operato, quam passim irridebant et pessime interpretabantur haeretici, consecrata est a Concilio Trident. (Sess. VII. can. 8.). Participium operatus sensu passivo sumptum occurrit iam apud Tertullianum et Lactantium (Forcellini, Lexicon etc.). — Applicatio vocum materia et forma ad rem sacramentariam, quae nunc communissima et ab Ecclesia iam seculo XV. in Decreto pro Armenis recepta est, nec in Hugone a S. Victore nec in Magistro invenitur; eam tamen adhibet Guliel. Antissiod. in Summa aurea. Antiquitus cum S. Augustino (Tract. 80. in Ioan.) dicebatur: Accedit verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum. Distinguebatur etiam Sacramentum (scilicet res sensibus obiecta) et res Sacramenti (gratia gratum faciens) nec non signum et res sacra (effectus Sacramenti). Observat tamen Thom. de Argentina (hic a. 1.), terminum res Sacramenti interdum largius accipi pro toto effectu Sacramenti in animam recepto, ut comprehendatur etiam character; vulgo tamen character vocatur res et Sacramentum; gratia vero res et non Sacramentum (cfr. infra d. 3. p. I. a. 1. q. 1. ad 3. S. Thom., hic q. 1. et 2.). — De hac 5. quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 3. a. 2, m. 4. a. 1. — Scot., hic q. 3. n. 8, et q. 5. — S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 5; S. I. II. q. 103. a. 2; III. q. 62. a. 6. — B. Albert., hic a. 15. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 7. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 4. — Durand., hic q. 5. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 6.

II. Quoad seq. (6.) quaestionem S. Thom. (S. III. q. 62. a. 2; IV. Sent. d. 7. q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 3.) docet, gratiam sacramentalem addere supra gratiam sanctificantem et etiam supra gratias virtutum et donorum quoddam divinum auxilium ad consequendum Sacramenti finem. Huic satis concordant S. Bonav. aliique posteriores. — De hac quaestione: Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 4. a. 2. § 2. — Scot., hic d. 2. q. 1. n. 2. seq., q. 6. n. 13. — B. Albert., hic a. 4. — Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 8. — Richard. a Med., hic a. 4. q. 4. — Dionys. Carth., hic q. 5.

---

English Translation

Question V. On the difference between the old and new Sacraments.

Fifthly, it is asked about the difference of the Sacraments of the new law and the old; and the Master¹ assigns this difference: «that those only promised grace and did not give it, but these give it». Hence the difference is commonly assigned, that the Sacraments of the new law effect what they figure, but those of the old do not.

1. Against these things Hugh objects thus, in the book On the Sacraments²: «Of the Sacraments, some are under nature, some under the Law, some under grace; some indeed differing in kind, but having the same effect of healing».

2. Likewise, Hugh³: «From the time the man began to fall sick, God in repairing him prepared a medicine in his Sacraments»; but it is impossible that God should heal without justifying grace: therefore in all the Sacraments there is justifying grace, and so there is no difference.

3. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because it was always fitting that the medicine should run together with the disease⁴, since always and in every law some are saved; but a Sacrament is not a medicine unless it heals through grace: therefore in every time the Sacraments conferred grace: and so forth.

4. Likewise, the Sacraments of the new law do not have efficacy except through the grace of faith, since he who is an unbeliever approaches feignedly and gains no benefit; but those Sacraments, joined to faith, used to justify, because every work, unless it be evil in itself, when it is from faith working through love, becomes meritorious⁵: therefore as these justify, so also do those.

On the contrary: 1. Hugh, in the book On the Sacraments⁶: «In the time of the law of nature man was left to himself, and left to himself he erred through ignorance, and so was convicted of blindness; afterward the old law was given without grace, in which he came to know what was to be done, but, pressed by concupiscence, he fell; and so he was overcome by powerlessness; and then Christ came», concerning whom it is said in John, chapter one: Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ: therefore the Sacraments in the time of the old law conferred no grace: therefore, and so forth.

2. Likewise, upon that text of Romans, chapter three⁷: From the works of the Law; the Gloss: «The works of the Law are called those that were instituted and terminated with the Law, which could never justify, even if they were done in faith and charity».

3. Likewise, upon that text of Isaiah, chapter one⁸: I did not want the blood of goats; the Gloss: «Using the past tense, he shows that he never loved the sacrifices of the Jews».

4. Likewise, it seems so by reason: because the old law was given as a burden; whence in Ezekiel, chapter twenty⁹: I gave them precepts not good and judgments in which they shall not live; but if they had Sacraments giving grace, these would lighten the burden; and blessed Peter, in Acts, chapter fifteen: This is a burden which neither we nor our fathers were able to bear: therefore, and so forth.

Conclusion. The Sacraments of the new law justify of themselves and confer grace from the work worked (ex opere operato), which the Sacraments of the old law did not do except per accidens.

I respond: It must be said that this difference Hugh understood in one way, and Peter of Poitiers and the Master understood in another way.

For the Master¹⁰, following Peter of Poitiers, said that the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision, were instituted for signifying only, among perfect and faithful men; because for others they were instituted either as a burden, if they were hard-hearted, or for recalling them from idolatry; and if they were ordained to any efficacy¹¹, this was solely that they might absolve from carnal irregularity or temporal penalty, like the baptisms and sacrifices. And because they were instituted solely for this, even if they were done from faith and charity, there was no merit in them, since they did not extend beyond that for which they existed. Hence, just as the motion of charity will not be meritorious in the fatherland, so then they did not merit in the exterior work, but only in the interior. And if you object to him concerning the medicine, he says that the faith of the Redeemer was the medicine for that time; but those things did not justify, neither per se nor per accidens. And of this position was Peter of Poitiers. — But this position did not seem reasonable to master Hugh, because then the sacrifices made by holy men would not have pleased God, nor the sacrifice of Abel, nor of Abraham, nor of Solomon; which is manifestly false, as is plain in the narrative of the canon¹². And what too of the offering of the sacred Virgin, when she offered a pair of turtledoves—was it then void of merit?

On account of this Master Hugh wished to say otherwise, that¹³ the Sacraments of the old law, with the exception of circumcision, were instituted first to signify either the passion, like the sacrifices, or even our Sacraments, like baptism their baptism; and for effecting they were not instituted except only exteriorly about the flesh. But because they signify what faith believes, in the receiving of them there is a profession of faith, not only by word¹⁴, but also by deed; and because such faith disposed toward justification, therefore those Sacraments justified per accidens. But the Sacraments of the new law were ordained not only from their first institution toward signifying, but also toward obtaining grace, and therefore¹⁵ they are ordained of themselves toward justification; therefore, speaking properly, these justify, those only per accidens. — And a sign of this is that the Sacraments of the old law principally signify that which is to be believed, like the passion of Christ and, by way of consequence, justification; with the exception of circumcision alone, which principally signifies the removal of original sin. But the Sacraments of the new law, on the contrary, first signify the efficacy of grace and, by way of consequence, the passion, that is, what is to be believed, as baptism signifies the interior washing and the passion. Hence Hugh¹⁶: «The Sacraments of the New Testament are in the first place signs of spiritual grace and are instituted principally for conferring that very grace upon those to be sanctified. But those signs were only of these, and by means of these they conferred grace unto sustentation»; by means of these, that is, by the faith of those, since they were not in the reality, but in faith.

And certain masters of modern time bring these opinions into accord as reasonable, saying that the Master meant that those things did not justify per se¹⁷, but Hugh, per accidens; therefore there is no contradiction. — There are also others who say the very same thing in other words, that these justify by reason of the work worked (opus operatum), but those by reason of the work of the one working (opus operans), not of the worked; and the work of the one working is faith, but the worked exteriorly is the Sacrament; and that they would justify¹⁸, this is by reason of faith and charity joined.

But if one attends, these positions directly contradict each other. For first, because the Master not only says that those Sacraments did not justify, but also that they did not justify¹⁹, even if they were done in faith and charity; and so neither per se nor per accidens. Again, each speaks of these insofar as they are Sacraments; and it is established that the work of the one working is not the Sacrament, but the work worked: therefore each understood it of the worked; and that is true, and concerning that work worked the Master said²⁰ that it only signified, did not justify, like the sprinkling of water or of blood. For the sprinkled blood of goats never justified, even if it were done in faith and charity, and this neither per se nor per accidens; and this was sufficiently probable.

But surely it is much more probable, as master Hugh held, that since in that work worked there was a profession of faith by deed²¹, which by reason of the joined faith was in those primarily and through those, there was nevertheless, per accidens, justification. But in this is their difference from the new, that in the Sacraments of the new law, as regards the works worked, there is justification not only per accidens, but also per se. And an evident sign of this has been shown beforehand in the mode of signifying of these Sacraments and of those. — But if the reason be asked whence this is; the response is from the foregoing²², because the causality of the Sacraments is nothing other than a certain efficacious ordination toward receiving grace from the divine pact; and this was only in the Sacraments of the new law, and not of the old except in circumcision, because there was a pact there. — But why in these there is pact and ordination, in those not; this is plain: because then was the time of the figure and of overcoming hardness of heart²³, now is the time of grace.

To the arguments: From these things the objections on both sides are plain; for those which prove that they do not justify are to be understood per se, speaking; but the others to the opposite, per accidens.

Scholion

I. The opinion of the Master and of Peter of Poitiers, that the Sacraments of the old law in no way—that is, neither as a work of the one working, though done in faith and charity, nor as a work worked or by the power of the Sacrament—would have been meritorious and justifying, is most commonly rejected as false. But neither is the other opinion of Hugh acceptable to many authors, namely that they would have justified in both ways, yet so that from the work worked this came about only per accidens, inasmuch as they were a figure of Christ who was to come (whence the actual receiving was a kind of profession and veneration of Christ). For these are unwilling to concede that those same things justified by the mode of a Sacrament, even if it be per accidens; but proceeding by a certain middle way between both opinions they teach that those same things justified only by the mode of the work of the one working, that is, through the faith of the one receiving or applying, provided that this was not only in the sign, but also in the heart (cf. below, p. II, a. 1, q. 2). — Very many others, however, judge that concerning circumcision it must be decided otherwise, on which cf. below, p. II, a. 2, q. 1. — The expression ex opere operato, which heretics everywhere derided and most wickedly interpreted, was consecrated by the Council of Trent (Sess. VII, can. 8). The participle operatus, taken in the passive sense, already occurs in Tertullian and Lactantius (Forcellini, Lexicon, etc.). — The application of the words matter and form to the sacramental subject, which is now most common and was received by the Church in the fifteenth century in the Decree for the Armenians, is found neither in Hugh of St. Victor nor in the Master; yet William of Auxerre employs it in his Summa Aurea. In antiquity, with St. Augustine (Tract. 80 on John), it was said: The word is added to the element, and the Sacrament is made. There was also distinguished the Sacrament (namely the thing presented to the senses) and the reality of the Sacrament (sanctifying grace), as also the sign and the sacred reality (the effect of the Sacrament). Yet Thomas of Argentina (here, a. 1) observes that the term res Sacramenti is sometimes taken more broadly for the whole effect of the Sacrament received in the soul, so that the character too is comprehended; commonly, however, the character is called res et Sacramentum; but grace, res et non Sacramentum (cf. below, d. 3, p. I, a. 1, q. 1, ad 3; St. Thomas, here q. 1 and 2). — On this fifth question: Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 3, m. 3, a. 2, m. 4, a. 1. — Scotus, here q. 3, n. 8, and q. 5. — St. Thomas, here q. 1, a. 5; S. I-II, q. 103, a. 2; III, q. 62, a. 6. — Bl. Albert, here a. 15. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 7. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3, q. 4. — Durandus, here q. 5. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 6.

II. As to the following (sixth) question, St. Thomas (S. III, q. 62, a. 2; IV Sent., d. 7, q. 2, a. 2, little-question 3) teaches that sacramental grace adds, above sanctifying grace and even above the graces of the virtues and gifts, a certain divine assistance toward attaining the end of the Sacrament. With this St. Bonaventure and the other later authors sufficiently agree. — On this question: Alexander of Hales, Summa, p. IV, q. 5, m. 4, a. 2, § 2. — Scotus, here d. 2, q. 1, n. 2 ff., q. 6, n. 13. — Bl. Albert, here a. 4. — Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1, a. 8. — Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 4, q. 4. — Dionysius the Carthusian, here q. 5.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Hic c. 6.
Here, c. 6 (of the Master's text, Sentences lib. IV, d. 1, c. 6).
2
Libr. I. p. VIII. c. 12: Alia ante Legem, alia sub Lege, alia sub gratia; diversa [quod etiam habet cod. Y] quidem in specie, unum tamen effectum habentia et unam sanitatem perficientia. — Pro Contra haec plures codd. Contra hoc, codd. R T Quod omnia Sacramenta habeant eundem effectum, hoc.
[Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments] Bk. I, p. VIII, c. 12: «Some before the Law, some under the Law, some under grace; differing indeed in kind [which cod. Y also has], yet having one effect and perfecting one healing». — For Contra haec several codices read Contra hoc; codd. R T, That all the Sacraments have the same effect, this.
3
Loc. cit., pluribus tamen post verba Ex quo homo interiectis. — De minori, in qua fide codd. F H substituimus mederi Deum pro mederi Deo, cfr. II. Sent. d. 26. q. 2, et tom. III. 888, nota 3.
In the place cited, though with several words interposed after the words Ex quo homo. — Concerning the minor premise, in which on the faith of codd. F H we have substituted mederi Deum (to heal man) for mederi Deo; cf. II Sent., d. 26, q. 2, and tom. III, p. 888, note 3.
4
Hugo, loc. cit: Quamdiu morbus est, tempus medicinae est. — Pro curreret Vat. curet, et contra paulo inferius pro curet non pauci codd. et ed. 1 curreret.
Hugh, in the place cited: «As long as there is disease, there is the time for medicine». — For curreret the Vatican edition reads curet; and, conversely, a little below, for curet not a few codices and ed. 1 read curreret.
5
Respicitur Gal. 5, 6: Nam in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio aliquid valet... sed fides, quae per caritatem operatur. — Circa initium arg. ante qui infidelis est multi codd. et ed. 1 omittunt quia, pro quo Vat. nam; codd. A F legunt qui infidelis est, quia ficte accedit, non reportat commodum, cod. U nam si infidelis ficte accedit, non reportat. — In his respicitur illud C. Intelleximus (7), X. libr. II. tit. I. de Iudiciis: Ne videatur de sua malitia commodum reportare.
Reference is to Gal. 5:6: «For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything... but faith, which works through charity». — Near the beginning of the argument, before qui infidelis est many codices and ed. 1 omit quia, in place of which the Vatican edition reads nam; codd. A F read qui infidelis est, quia ficte accedit, non reportat commodum; cod. U, nam si infidelis ficte accedit, non reportat. — In these things reference is to the chapter Intelleximus (7), X, lib. II, tit. I, On Judgments: «Lest he seem to gain advantage from his own malice».
6
Libr. I. p. VIII. c. 3, et praesertim libr. II. p. II. c. 1, sed extensius. In fine testimonii allegatur Ioan. 1, 17.
[Hugh, On the Sacraments] Bk. I, p. VIII, c. 3, and especially Bk. II, p. II, c. 1, but more extensively. At the end of the testimony John 1:17 is cited.
7
Vers. 20. — Glossa, quae est ordinaria, exhibetur a Strabo et Lyrano, ubi textus originalis post terminata sunt addit ut erant caerimonialia et figurativa, et pro potuerunt substituit valuerunt (codd. F H Z aa poterant), nec non pro in fide et caritate exhibet cum caritate et devotione.
Verse 20. — The Gloss, which is the ordinary Gloss, is set forth by Strabo and by Lyra, where the original text after terminata sunt adds ut erant caerimonialia et figurativa (as they were ceremonial and figurative), and for potuerunt substitutes valuerunt (codd. F H Z aa poterant), and also for in fide et caritate gives cum caritate et devotione.
8
Vers. 11. — Glossa, apud Strabum et Lyranum ordinaria, delibata est ex Hieron. in hunc locum, ubi dicit: Pro eo quod est nolui Septuaginta transtulerunt nolo, praesens tempus pro praeterito. Porro iuxta Hebraicum nunquam se Deus hostias Iudaeorum voluisse demonstrat etc.
Verse 11. — The Gloss, ordinary in Strabo and Lyra, is drawn from Jerome on this place, where he says: «For that which is nolui (I did not want) the Septuagint translated nolo (I do not want), the present tense for the past. Moreover, according to the Hebrew, God shows that he never willed the victims of the Jews», etc.
9
Vers. 25, ubi Vulgata et cod. Z iudicia, codd. K aa iudicia mala pro verba. — Seq. textus est Act. 15, 10: Nunc ergo quid tentatis Deum, imponere iugum super cervices discipulorum, quod etc.
Verse 25, where the Vulgate and cod. Z read iudicia (judgments), codd. K aa iudicia mala (evil judgments) for verba (words). — The following text is Acts 15:10: «Now therefore why do you tempt God, to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which», etc.
10
Hic c. 4. 6. et 7. — Pictaviensis est Gilb. Porretanus, episcopus quondam Pictaviensis. Cfr. tom. I. pag. 575, nota 3. — Superius pro intellexit Hugo non pauci codd. cum ed. 1 intelligit Hugo.
Here, cc. 4, 6, and 7 (of the Master's text). — Peter of Poitiers is Gilbert of Poitiers (Gilbertus Porretanus), formerly bishop of Poitiers. Cf. tom. I, p. 575, note 3. — Above, for intellexit Hugo not a few codices with ed. 1 read intelligit Hugo.
11
Codd. H K habuerunt efficaciam ordinari, multi alii codd. incongrue habuerunt efficaciam ordinata.
Codd. H K read habuerunt efficaciam ordinari; many other codices, incongruously, habuerunt efficaciam ordinata.
12
Canon Missae, ubi sic habetur: Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel, et sacrificium Patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech etc. — Cod. F a secunda manu nec Melchisedech pro nec Salomonis. In lectione codd., si nomine canonis non intelligatur sacra Scriptura, sed canon Missae, propositio refertur tantum ad Abel et Abraham, quibus adiungitur Salomon, cuius sacrificium Deo placuit, ut colligi potest ex II. Paralip. 7, 1. Pro narratione canonis codd. F H oratione canonis. — Post pauca respicitur Luc. 2, 24. — Hugo a S. Vict., I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 1: Si quis igitur Sacramenta priora effectum sanctificationis habuisse negaverit, non mihi recte sentire videretur. De subnexis vide ibidem c. 2. seqq.; p. XII. c. 1. seq.; et Sum. Sent. tr. 4. c. 1. — Post Et quid cod. Z supplet dicetur.
The Canon of the Mass, where it reads thus: «Upon which deign to look with a propitious and serene countenance and to hold them accepted, as you deigned to hold accepted the gifts of your just servant Abel, and the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which your high priest Melchizedek offered to you», etc. — Cod. F, by a second hand, reads nec Melchisedech for nec Salomonis. In the reading of the codices, if by the name canon one understands not sacred Scripture but the Canon of the Mass, the proposition refers only to Abel and Abraham, to whom Solomon is joined, whose sacrifice pleased God, as can be gathered from II Paralip. 7:1. For narratione canonis codd. F H read oratione canonis. — A little after, reference is to Luke 2:24. — Hugh of St. Victor, I On the Sacraments, p. XI, c. 1: «If therefore anyone should deny that the earlier Sacraments had the effect of sanctification, he would not seem to me to judge rightly». On what follows see in the same place, c. 2 ff.; p. XII, c. 1 f.; and Summa Sententiarum, tr. 4, c. 1. — After Et quid cod. Z supplies dicetur.
13
Codd. F H (I a secunda manu) scilicet quod.
Codd. F H (I by a second hand) read scilicet quod.
14
Codd. F H in verbo, qui etiam subinde cum non paucis aliis codd. substituunt sed in facto pro sed et facto.
Codd. F H read in verbo, which also thereupon, with not a few other codices, substitute sed in facto for sed et facto.
15
Cod. Z (I primitus) ad gratiam obtinendam a Deo, per se (I a secunda manu unde per se) etc. Paulo ante pro ex prima sua institutione codd. I Z ex primaria institutione, edd. ex prima causa et institutione, cod. F ex prima causa instituta et.
Cod. Z (I originally) reads ad gratiam obtinendam a Deo, per se (I by a second hand, unde per se), etc. A little before, for ex prima sua institutione codd. I Z read ex primaria institutione; the editions, ex prima causa et institutione; cod. F, ex prima causa instituta et.
16
Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 5, ubi textus originalis post conferendam addit infusa sibi benedictione, et subinde post mediantibus his inserit quorum signa fuerunt, ne sine salute essent, qui tempus redemptionis praecesserunt. — Edd. pro in sustentationem substituunt iustificationis. Codd. pro mediantibus his bis exhibent mediantibus istis.
Bk. I On the Sacraments, p. IX, c. 5, where the original text after conferendam adds infusa sibi benedictione, and thereupon after mediantibus his inserts quorum signa fuerunt, ne sine salute essent, qui tempus redemptionis praecesserunt (whose signs they were, lest those be without salvation who came before the time of redemption). — The editions for in sustentationem substitute iustificationis. The codices, for mediantibus his, twice give mediantibus istis.
17
Codd. verbis transpositis Magistrum locutum esse per se (codd. F H Z et I bb a secunda manu addunt cum dixit), quod illa non iustificabant.
The codices, with the words transposed, read Magistrum locutum esse per se (codd. F H Z and I bb, by a second hand, add cum dixit), that illa non iustificabant.
18
Ex codd. F H (I a secunda manu) supplevimus quod iustificarent.
From codd. F H (I by a second hand) we have supplied quod iustificarent.
19
Plures codd. omittunt sed etiam quod non iustificabant, pro quo edd. immo.
Several codices omit sed etiam quod non iustificabant, in place of which the editions read immo.
20
Cfr. hic lit. c. 4. — Post pauca respicitur Hebr. 9, 13. — Aliquanto inferius pro et hoc (cod. L et ita) nec per se edd. et hoc modo nec per se.
Cf. here the [Master's] text, c. 4. — A little after, reference is to Heb. 9:13. — Somewhat below, for et hoc (cod. L et ita) nec per se the editions read et hoc modo nec per se.
21
Ita codd. A C F K P Q V W bb cc (I primitus), codd. D H in facto, cod. L factae, edd. facta. Mox post primo cod. F addit significatio et omittit per illa ac tamen. Subinde pro quod in Sacramentis plurimi codd. quia in Sacramentis.
Thus codd. A C F K P Q V W bb cc (I originally); codd. D H in facto; cod. L factae; the editions facta. Soon after primo cod. F adds significatio and omits per illa ac tamen. Thereupon, for quod in Sacramentis very many codices read quia in Sacramentis.
22
Quaest. praeced. — Inferius respicitur Gen. 17, 10: Hoc est pactum meum... Circumcidetur etc. — Pro responsio est edd. patet responsio.
The preceding question. — Below, reference is to Gen. 17:10: «This is my covenant... Let him be circumcised», etc. — For responsio est the editions read patet responsio.
23
Vat. addit illorum per illa Sacramenta.
The Vatican edition adds illorum per illa Sacramenta.