Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 1, Part 1, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1

Textus Latinus

p. 28

Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de definitione Sacramenti, quam ponit Magister: Sacramentum est sacrae rei signum. Videtur enim male assignare, eo quod videtur aliis convenire¹, quae non sunt Sacramenta, et tamen sunt sacrae rei signum, ut est hoc nomen Deus. Si dicas, quod sit signum rei sacrae et ut sacrae; tunc hoc nomen sanctum et sanctificans est Sacramentum. Si tu dicas, quod hoc intelligitur de signo visibili; tunc ergo ratio haec non est convertibilis².

Respondeo: Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod Sacramentum accipitur tripliciter, scilicet communiter et proprie et propriissime; et secundum hoc Magister dat tres definitiones. Et prima est Sacramenti largissime accepti³. — Potest tamen dici secundum Hugonem aliter⁴, quod illa non est definitio, sed nominis interpretatio; et Magister non intendit ibi definitionem Sacramenti ponere, sed nominis interpretationem sive verbi notificationem. Et ex prima interpretatione habetur, quod Sacramentum sit signum rei sacrae; ex secunda, quod sit signum visibile rei sacrae et sanctificantis; ex tertia, quod sit signum⁵ rei sacrae et sanctificantis, ita quod ad illam habendum efficaciter ordinat suscipientem; et sic dicitur proprie Sacramentum, et ita venatur Magister definitionem Sacramenti. Si ergo prima ratio determinetur per has conditiones, tunc dicetur ratio Sacramenti; si autem in sua generalitate intelligatur, sic solum est interpretatio nominis, non definitio convertibilis⁶.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sacramentum est invisibilis gratiae visibilis forma. Videtur enim non bene definiri, quia corpus Christi verum est Sacramentum⁷, character est Sacramentum, et tamen neutrum est visibilis forma. Si tu dicas, quod visibile sumitur ad visibile sensu exteriori,

p. 29

secundum quod dicitur Genesis tertio⁸: Vidit igitur mulier; et ad visibile quantum ad sensum communem, secundum quod dicitur Exodi vigesimo: Cunctus populus videbat voces etc.; et ad visibile secundum intellectum, secundum quod dicitur Genesis primo: Vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona; obiicitur contra hoc, quod gratia secundum istum modum videndi⁹ non est invisibilis: ergo male dicitur invisibilis gratiae. Propter hoc quaeritur: quomodo accipitur ibi visibilis; et quare magis signi visibilis quam audibilis, cum vox sit signum magis expressivum? Et iterum, cum Sacramentum sit compositum, quaeritur, quomodo sit forma.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod visibile accipitur ibi pro sensibili sensu exteriori, maxime quantum ad duos sensus disciplinales¹⁰; unde visibile comprehendit audibile. Sed magis dicitur visibile quam audibile propter hoc, quod ratio signandi, ut infra¹¹ videbitur, magis residet penes elementum; et hoc est perceptibile visu, et utrumque concurrit ad Sacramentum. — Quod obiicitur de charactere¹², dicendum, quod non est Sacramentum, nisi quia annexum est sensibili sive visibili exteriori, et Magister definit principaliter quod est exterius. — Quod obiicitur de forma, dicendum, quod forma uno modo dicitur perfectio rei; alio modo paradigma sive exemplar¹³; tertio modo dicitur forma quasi foris manens, id est aliqua similitudo exterius repraesentans; et sic accipitur in proposito.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sacramentum eius rei similitudinem gerit, cuius est signum. Videtur enim male dicere, quia Sacramentum est res corporalis, et gratia res spiritualis: ergo cum nulla sit convenientia in aliqua qualitate inter illa, non est similitudo¹⁴.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod similitudo duobus modis attenditur: uno modo secundum unius rationis proprietatem sive naturae participationem; alio modo secundum unius formae comparationem. Prima dicitur similitudo proportionis, secunda dicitur similitudo proportionalitatis. Sacramentum¹⁵ gerit similitudinem gratiae secundo modo, non primo, pro eo quod, sicut aqua abluit carnem, ita gratia mundat animam; et sicut oleum lenit exterius, ita gratia interius. Et haec similitudo est in quatuor terminis¹⁶.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Cinis vitulae aspersus inquinatos sanctificat ad emundationem carnis, non animae. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia immunditia carnis non amovebatur, immo plus¹⁷ caro inficiebatur.

Respondeo: Immunditia carnis dicitur, non quia pure erat carnalis, sed quia erat irregularitas contracta ex solo actu carnali; sicut erat tangere mortuum, ex quo dicebatur immundus, non quia macula erat¹⁸ in anima vel in carne, sed quia ex hoc aliquam contraxerat irregularitatem, ut non esset idoneus ingredi in templum¹⁹.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sed purificabatur secundum Legem die tertio et septimo;

p. 30

unde hoc erat, quod sacerdos erat purificandus²⁰ secundum Legem, cum idem non debeat esse causa purificationis et inquinationis?

Respondeo: Ratio huius erat litteralis, allegorica et moralis: litteralis, quia tangebat cinerem animalis mortui, et summus etiam sacerdos in peccato populi communicabat; ideo in poena²¹ contrahendi immunditiam communicabat. Allegorica ratio est, quia in hoc significabatur, quod immunditia Iudaeorum non erat totaliter auferenda usque ad finem, quando reliquiae Israel salvae fient, ad Romanos nono²². Moralis vero ratio erat, quia illa immunditia significabat, quod homo debeat se reputare immundum; et sacerdos, qui pro aliis purificandis orat, debet se reputare immundum, quia aliena peccata debet reputare quasi sua; vel etiam debet credere, se in illo officio aliquid commisisse, iuxta illud Gregorii²³: «Bonarum mentium est ibi culpam agnoscere, ubi culpa non est».

Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Mundabant etiam interdum a corporali lepra illa legalia; quia, si hoc verum erat, tunc ergo illa erant maioris virtutis, quam sint ista.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod mundare dicuntur, quia mundatum ostendebant. — Et si tu quaeras, respondeo: dicendum, quod magna; quia leprosi eiiciebantur extra castra et non poterant redire, nisi²⁴ purificarentur et iudicio sacerdotis essent mundi. — Sed tunc obiicies: cum lepra sit morbus incurabilis, videtur, quod nullus mundaretur. Dici potest, quod aliqui radicitus habebant causam morbi, et isti nunquam mundabantur, nec secundum veritatem nec secundum iudicium sacerdotis. Aliqui vero habebant signa²⁵, et isti mundari poterant, id est mundati ostendi, cum illa signa iam cessabant.

Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Triplici ex causa instituta sunt Sacramenta. Videtur enim male dicere: quia unius rei unicus est finis: ergo videtur, quod una sola sit causa principalis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod una est causa principalis, scilicet animae ornatus sive reparatio; sed quia anima plures habet potentias, possunt fines plurificari penes illas, uno tamen principali fine existente. Est enim in nobis vis regitiva²⁶, et quantum ad hanc est eruditio; est vis irascibilis, et quantum ad hanc est humiliatio; est concupiscibilis, et quantum ad hanc, ne fastidiat, est exercitatio. — Vel aliter: eruditio quantum ad cognitivam, humiliatio quantum ad affectivam, sed exercitatio quantum ad operativam²⁷.

Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod dum homo rebus sensibilibus, quae natura infra ipsum sunt, subiicitur. Videtur enim in hoc perverti ordo: quia anima est supra huiusmodi creaturas: ergo si eis se subiicit, pervertitur in hoc ordo naturalis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod subiicere se his rebus potest homo quatuor considerationibus: aut propter peccati meritum, aut propter Dei praeceptum, aut quia sunt gratiae signum, aut quia in eis statuit summum bonum et finem ultimum. Primis tribus de causis est meritorium, et nulla inordinatio. Propter peccati enim meritum est aliquis infra illa, et ita eius subiectio respectu talium est ordinata. Item, qui propter praeceptum se subiicit ordinate facit, quia se subiicit magis praecepto quam rei sensibili²⁸. Et qui propter significationem, magis signato subiicit se quam signo. Sed in quarta consideratione ordo pervertitur, et est peccatum; et sic non spectat ad propositum.

Dub. IX.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Homo, qui ante peccatum sine medio Deum videbat. Videtur enim dicere falsum: quia qui videt Deum sine medio videt Deum per essentiam, videt etiam facie ad faciem²⁹; sed omnis talis est beatus: ergo etc.

p. 31

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod videre sine medio est dupliciter: aut sine medio adminiculante, aut sine medio obumbrante. Primum medium est speculare, secundum aenigmaticum. Sine primo non erat homo³⁰, sed erat sine secundo, in quod incidit per peccatum; et ideo, quia caecus erat, indiguit erudiri et manuduci; non sic in statu primo³¹.

Dub. X.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Propter exercitationem similiter instituta sunt; quia, si hoc verum est, cum corporalis exercitatio ad modicum sit utilis³², cum ergo Sacramenta sint corporales res: ergo ad modicum sunt utilia propter exercitationem.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod exercitari³³ in observantia ipsorum Sacramentorum potest esse dupliciter: aut in solo exteriori ritu, et sic ad modicum valet; aut iuncta devotione mentis, et sic non est corporalis, sed quodam modo spiritualis, ac per hoc multum utilis³⁴.

Dub. XI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod duo sunt, in quibus consistunt Sacramenta, scilicet res et verba. Videtur enim, quod male dividat, quia omne verbum est res. — Item, videtur, quod dividat insufficienter, quia Hugo³⁵ dicit, quod consistunt in rebus, dictis et factis.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod res arctatur hic ad visibilia, et Magister strictius accipit Sacramenta, quam Hugo: quia ille accipiebat, quamcumque institutionem honestatis in Dei Ecclesia Sacramentum esse, Magister vero strictius accipit³⁶.

Dub. XII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Augustinus, quia promittebant et significabant tantum. Videtur enim male dicere: quia aut promittebant illis qui erant illius temporis, aut futuris. Futuris non, quia non promittit aliquis aliquid alicui, nisi ille sit. Si illis qui tunc erant; constat, quod ad Sacramenta novae legis illi non pervenerunt: ergo decepti erant in promissione.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod hic accipitur promissio non gratiae iustificantis, sed gloriae; et illa promittebant, sed non dabant, quia ianua nondum erat aperta; haec autem promittunt et dant, cum ianua sit aperta a Christo³⁷.

---

English Translation

Doubts on the text of the Master.

Doubt I.

In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first there is a doubt about the definition of a Sacrament which the Master sets down: A Sacrament is the sign of a sacred thing. For it seems to be ill assigned, because it seems to fit other things¹ which are not Sacraments and yet are signs of a sacred thing, as is this name God. If you say that it is a sign of a sacred thing and as sacred; then this name holy and sanctifying is a Sacrament. If you say that this is understood of a visible sign; then therefore this account is not convertible².

I respond: To this some say that "Sacrament" is taken in three ways, namely commonly, properly, and most properly; and accordingly the Master gives three definitions. And the first is of a Sacrament taken most broadly³. — Yet it can be said, with Hugh, otherwise⁴, that this is not a definition but an interpretation of the name; and the Master does not intend there to set down a definition of a Sacrament, but an interpretation of the name, or a notification of the word. And from the first interpretation it is had that a Sacrament is a sign of a sacred thing; from the second, that it is a visible sign of a sacred and sanctifying thing; from the third, that it is a sign⁵ of a sacred and sanctifying thing, in such a way that it efficaciously orders the recipient to obtaining it; and thus it is called a Sacrament properly, and so the Master hunts down the definition of a Sacrament. If therefore the first account be determined by these conditions, then it will be called the account of a Sacrament; but if it be understood in its generality, then it is only an interpretation of the name, not a convertible definition⁶.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: A Sacrament is the visible form of invisible grace. For it seems not to be well defined, since the true body of Christ is a Sacrament⁷, the character is a Sacrament, and yet neither is a visible form. If you say that visible is taken with respect to what is visible by the exterior sense,

according to what is said in Genesis chapter three⁸: The woman therefore saw; and with respect to the visible as regards the common sense, according to what is said in Exodus chapter twenty: And all the people saw the voices, etc.; and with respect to the visible according to the intellect, according to what is said in Genesis chapter one: God saw all the things that he had made, and they were very good; one objects against this that grace, according to this mode of seeing⁹, is not invisible: therefore it is ill said to be of invisible grace. On account of this it is asked: in what sense is visible taken there; and why rather of a visible than of an audible sign, since the voice is a more expressive sign? And again, since a Sacrament is composite, it is asked how it is a form.

I respond: It must be said that visible is taken there for the sensible by the exterior sense, especially as regards the two disciplinal senses¹⁰; whence the visible comprehends the audible. But it is rather called visible than audible on account of this, that the account of signifying, as will be seen below¹¹, rather resides in the element; and this is perceptible by sight, and both concur in the Sacrament. — As to the objection about the character¹², it must be said that it is not a Sacrament except because it is annexed to something sensible or visible exteriorly, and the Master defines principally what is exterior. — As to the objection about the form, it must be said that form in one way is called the perfection of a thing; in another way, a paradigm or exemplar¹³; in a third way, form is called as it were remaining outwardly, that is, some likeness representing exteriorly; and so it is taken in the matter at hand.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: A Sacrament bears the likeness of that thing of which it is the sign. For it seems to be ill said, since a Sacrament is a corporeal thing, and grace a spiritual thing: therefore, since there is no agreement in any quality between them, there is no likeness¹⁴.

I respond: It must be said that likeness is considered in two ways: in one way according to the property of one nature or the participation of a nature; in another way according to the comparison of one form. The first is called the likeness of proportion, the second is called the likeness of proportionality. A Sacrament¹⁵ bears the likeness of grace in the second way, not the first, for the reason that, just as water washes the flesh, so grace cleanses the soul; and just as oil soothes exteriorly, so grace [soothes] interiorly. And this likeness is in four terms¹⁶.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: The ashes of the heifer, when sprinkled, sanctify the defiled unto the cleansing of the flesh, not of the soul. For it seems to say something false, since the uncleanness of the flesh was not removed, but rather the flesh was the more¹⁷ infected.

I respond: It is called uncleanness of the flesh, not because it was purely carnal, but because it was an irregularity contracted from a carnal act alone; just as touching a dead body, from which one was called unclean, not because there was a stain¹⁸ in the soul or in the flesh, but because from this he had contracted some irregularity, so that he was not fit to enter into the temple¹⁹.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: But he was purified according to the Law on the third and the seventh day;

whence was it that the priest had to be purified²⁰ according to the Law, since the same thing ought not to be the cause both of purification and of defilement?

I respond: The reason for this was literal, allegorical, and moral: literal, because he touched the ash of a dead animal, and the high priest too shared in the sin of the people; therefore in the penalty²¹ of contracting it he shared in the uncleanness. The allegorical reason is that in this it was signified that the uncleanness of the Jews was not to be wholly taken away until the end, when the remnant of Israel shall be saved, to the Romans chapter nine²². But the moral reason was that that uncleanness signified that a man ought to reckon himself unclean; and the priest, who prays for the purifying of others, ought to reckon himself unclean, since he ought to reckon the sins of others as if his own; or also he ought to believe that he has committed something in that office, according to that saying of Gregory²³: «It belongs to good minds to acknowledge fault there where there is no fault».

Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: Those legal observances also sometimes cleansed from corporeal leprosy; for, if this were true, then those things were of greater power than these are.

I respond: It must be said that they are called to cleanse because they showed cleansed. — And if you ask what utility there was, I respond: it must be said, a great one; because lepers were cast out beyond the camp and could not return unless²⁴ they were purified and were clean by the judgment of the priest. — But then you will object: since leprosy is an incurable disease, it seems that no one would be cleansed. It can be said that some had the cause of the disease radically, and these were never cleansed, neither according to truth nor according to the judgment of the priest. But others had [only] signs²⁵, and these could be cleansed, that is, shown to be cleansed, when those signs now ceased.

Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: Sacraments were instituted from a threefold cause. For it seems to be ill said: since of one thing there is one end: therefore it seems that there is only one principal cause.

I respond: It must be said that there is one principal cause, namely the adornment or repair of the soul; but because the soul has several powers, the ends can be multiplied with respect to them, while one principal end nevertheless exists. For there is in us the governing power²⁶, and as regards this there is instruction; there is the irascible power, and as regards this there is humiliation; there is the concupiscible, and as regards this, lest it grow weary, there is exercise. — Or otherwise: instruction as regards the cognitive [power], humiliation as regards the affective, but exercise as regards the operative²⁷.

Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that while a man subjects himself to sensible things which are by nature beneath him. For it seems that in this the order is perverted: since the soul is above creatures of this kind: therefore if it subjects itself to them, the natural order is perverted in this.

I respond: It must be said that a man can subject himself to these things under four considerations: either on account of the merit of sin, or on account of the precept of God, or because they are a sign of grace, or because in them he establishes the highest good and ultimate end. From the first three causes it is meritorious, and there is no disorder. For on account of the merit of sin one is beneath them, and so his subjection with respect to such things is ordered. Likewise, he who subjects himself on account of the precept acts in an ordered way, because he subjects himself rather to the precept than to the sensible thing²⁸. And he who [subjects himself] on account of the signification subjects himself rather to the thing signified than to the sign. But in the fourth consideration the order is perverted, and it is sin; and thus it does not pertain to the matter at hand.

Doubt IX.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: Man, who before sin saw God without a medium. For it seems to say something false: because he who sees God without a medium sees God through his essence, sees also face to face²⁹; but everyone such is blessed: therefore, etc.

I respond: It must be said that to see without a medium is twofold: either without a supporting medium, or without an obscuring medium. The first medium is the mirror, the second the riddle. Man was not without the first³⁰, but he was without the second, into which he fell through sin; and therefore, because he was blind, he needed to be instructed and led by the hand; not so in the first state³¹.

Doubt X.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: They were instituted likewise for the sake of exercise; for, if this be true, since bodily exercise is profitable to little³², then, since the Sacraments are bodily things, therefore they are of little profit for the sake of exercise.

I respond: It must be said that to be exercised³³ in the observance of the Sacraments themselves can be twofold: either in the bare exterior rite, and thus it avails to little; or joined with devotion of mind, and thus it is not bodily, but in a certain way spiritual, and through this much profitable³⁴.

Doubt XI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that there are two things in which the Sacraments consist, namely the thing (res) and the words. For it seems that he divides ill, since every word is a thing. — Likewise, it seems that he divides insufficiently, since Hugh³⁵ says that they consist in things, words [spoken], and deeds [done].

I respond: It must be said that thing (res) is here restricted to visible things, and the Master takes the Sacraments more strictly than Hugh: for the latter took whatever institution of decency in the Church of God to be a Sacrament, but the Master takes them more strictly³⁶.

Doubt XII.

Likewise it is asked about this which Augustine says, that they only promised and signified. For it seems to say something false: since either they promised to those who were of that time, or to those to come. Not to those to come, since no one promises anything to anyone unless he exist. If to those who were then, it is established that they did not attain to the Sacraments of the new law: therefore they were deceived in the promise.

I respond: It must be said that here the promise is taken not of justifying grace, but of glory; and that [grace] they promised but did not give, because the gate was not yet open; but these [Sacraments of the new law] promise and give, since the gate has been opened by Christ³⁷.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Edd. cum pluribus codd. communicare. Mox pro sacrae rei signum codd. F aa (H a secunda manu) sacrae rei signa.
The editions, with very many codices, read communicare. Shortly after, for the sign of a sacred thing codices F, aa (and H by a second hand) read signs of a sacred thing.
2
Secundum Aristot. VI. Topic. c. 2. (c. 3.), definitio non est bona, quae non est convertibilis cum definito: Nam huiusmodi oratio non conversim praedicabitur de re, eo quod non omnibus inest, quae sub eadem specie sunt.
According to Aristotle, Topics VI c. 2 (c. 3), a definition is not good which is not convertible with the defined: for a statement of this kind will not be predicated convertibly of the thing, since it is not present in all those things which are under the same species.
3
In cod. P secunda manus scribit de praedictis: Respondeo. Ad hoc dicunt aliqui, quod Sacramentum accipitur dupliciter: active et passive. Passive dictum accipitur impropriissime; signum enim proprie dicitur Sacramentum et non signatum; et hoc modo passio Christi et resurrectio et huiusmodi dicuntur Sacramenta, quia sunt sacra signata, vel dicuntur effective Sacramenta, quia ab ipsis habent Sacramenta virtutem. — Active vero dictum accipitur tripliciter, scilicet communiter, proprie et propriissime; et secundum hoc Magister dat tres definitiones. Prima est Sacramenti largissime accepti, secundum quod Sacramentum convenit omnibus signis rem sacram, creatam, ordinatam vel ordinabilem ad salutem significantibus, sive ad hoc sint principaliter instituta, sive non; et secundum hoc res significata est visibilis vel invisibilis. Secunda est Sacramenti proprie et stricte accepti, secundum quod convenit signis rem sacram significantibus ex institutione, quae res sacra est tantum invisibilis; et haec est communis Sacramentis veteris et novae legis. Tertia est Sacramenti propriissime et strictissime accepti, quae propria est Sacramentis novae legis.
In codex P a second hand writes regarding the foregoing: I respond. To this some say that "Sacrament" is taken in two ways: actively and passively. Taken passively, it is taken most improperly; for a sign is properly called a Sacrament, and not the thing signified; and in this way the Passion of Christ and the Resurrection and the like are called Sacraments, because they are sacred things signified, or are called Sacraments effectively, because the Sacraments have their power from them. — But taken actively, it is taken in three ways, namely commonly, properly, and most properly; and accordingly the Master gives three definitions. The first is of a Sacrament taken most broadly, according to which "Sacrament" fits all signs that signify a sacred thing, created, ordered or orderable to salvation, whether they be principally instituted for this or not; and according to this the thing signified is visible or invisible. The second is of a Sacrament taken properly and strictly, according to which it fits signs signifying a sacred thing by institution, which sacred thing is only invisible; and this is common to the Sacraments of the old and the new law. The third is of a Sacrament taken most properly and most strictly, which is proper to the Sacraments of the new law.
4
Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 2.
[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments Book I, part IX, c. 2.
5
Edd. addunt visibile, refragantibus plurimis codd. Mox pro ad illam, quod habent codd. HI et contextus exigit, alii codd. et edd. ad illud. Aliquanto inferius pro determinetur codd. AFHZ determinatur, et pro dicetur edd. cum nonnullis codd. diceretur.
The editions add visible, against very many codices. Shortly after, for to it (fem.), which codices HI have and the context requires, the other codices and the editions read to it (neut.). Somewhat further below, for be determined codices AFHZ read is determined, and for will be called the editions with some codices read would be called.
6
Idem dubium solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. I. m. I, et q. ij. m. I; B. Albert., hic a. 5; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. I; Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 1; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 3. Locc. citt. solvuntur etiam duo seqq. dubia.
The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. I m. I, and q. 2 m. I; Blessed Albert, here a. 5; St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. I; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I a. 1; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1 q. 3. In the places cited the two following doubts are also resolved.
7
Cfr. infr. lit. Magistri, d. VIII. c. 6. seq., et ibid. Comment. p. II. a. 2. q. 1. — De charactere vide infra d. 6. p. 1. q. 1. seqq. — Pro verum cod. H vere. Inferius post sumitur edd. addunt communiter.
Compare below, the text of the Master, d. VIII c. 6 f., and the Commentary there, part II a. 2 q. 1. — On the character, see below d. 6 part 1 q. 1 ff. — For true codex H reads truly. Below, after is taken, the editions add commonly.
8
Vers. 6. — Locus seq. est Exod. 20, 18; tertius Gen. 1, 31. — Secundum locum (Exod. 20, 18.) August., II. Quaest. in Pentateuch. q. 72, sic exponit: Solet quaeri, quomodo populus videbat vocem, cum vox non ad visum, sed potius ad auditum pertinere videatur? Sed... videre solet pro generali sensu poni, non solum corporis, verum etiam animi...... Nam: vide, quid sonet, solemus dicere; audi, quid luceat, non solemus. Cfr. X. Confess. c. 35. n. 54.
Verse 6. — The next passage is Exod. 20, 18; the third, Gen. 1, 31. — On the second passage (Exod. 20, 18) Augustine, Questions on the Pentateuch II q. 72, expounds thus: It is wont to be asked how the people saw the voice, since the voice seems to pertain not to sight but rather to hearing? But... "to see" is wont to be used for a general sense, not only of the body but also of the mind...... For "see what it sounds like" we are wont to say; "hear what shines," we are not wont [to say]. Compare Confessions X c. 35 n. 54.
9
Ex codd. HQ supplevimus secundum istum modum videndi, pro quo codd. BKaa (D a secunda manu) secundum hoc. Post pauca pro accipitur ibi visibilis, quod exhibent codd. AH (K a secunda manu), alii codd. cum edd. accipitur ibi invisibilis, quae lectio responsioni inferius datae non congruit. Subinde post vox sit signum permulti codd. non bene omittunt magis.
From codices HQ we have supplied according to this mode of seeing, for which codices BKaa (D by a second hand) read according to this. A little after, for the visible is taken there, which codices AH (K by a second hand) exhibit, the other codices with the editions read the invisible is taken there, which reading does not agree with the response given below. Thereupon, after the voice is a sign, very many codices wrongly omit more.
10
Scilicet visum et auditum, qui maxime deserviunt ad scientiam sive disciplinam acquirendam. Cfr. III. Sent. d. 24. dub. 2. — Edd. disciplinabiles.
Namely sight and hearing, which most serve for acquiring knowledge or discipline. Compare III Sent. d. 24 dub. 2. — The editions read teachable (disciplinabiles).
11
Dist. 3. p. I. a. I. q. I.
Distinction 3, part I, a. I, q. I.
12
Cod. I a secunda manu de corpore Christi et de charactere, et dein quod non sunt..... nisi quia annexa sunt sensibili.
Codex I by a second hand reads of the body of Christ and of the character, and then which are not..... except because they are annexed to something sensible.
13
Forma enim sive causa formalis dividitur in intrinsecam et extrinsecam, quae vocatur etiam exemplaris. Cfr. Aristot., VII. Metaph., text. 22. seqq. (VI. c. 7.) — De forma tertio modo accepta vide Aristot., Praedicam. c. de Qualitate, ubi tanquam quartam speciem qualitatis figuram et formam recenset; haec tangitur infra d. 6. p. I. q. I. in corp.; d. 48. a. 2. q. 3. in fine, et d. 49. p. I. q. I. ad 5. B. Albert., in Praedicam. c. de Qualitate, c. 9. ait: Dicitur enim forma, quasi foris manens secundum nomen, et sic modus continentiae in terminatione linearum et superficierum dicitur forma. Et haec forma est species qualitatis. Idem docet Alex. Hal. S. p. IV. q. 3. m. I. n. 1, ubi adducit etiam pro hoc illud Rom. 5, 14: Qui [Adam] est forma futuri, i. e. figura sive similitudo, ut dicit Glossa.
For form, or formal cause, is divided into the intrinsic and the extrinsic, which latter is also called exemplary. Compare Aristotle, Metaphysics VII text. 22 ff. (VI c. 7). — On form taken in the third way, see Aristotle, Categories, the chapter on Quality, where he reckons figure and form as the fourth species of quality; this is touched on below d. 6 part I q. I in the body; d. 48 a. 2 q. 3 at the end, and d. 49 part I q. I ad 5. Blessed Albert, on the Categories, the chapter on Quality, c. 9, says: For it is called "form" as it were "remaining outwardly" according to the name, and thus the mode of containment in the bounding of lines and surfaces is called form. And this form is a species of quality. The same is taught by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 3 m. I n. 1, where he also adduces for this that text of Rom. 5, 14: Who [Adam] is the form of the one to come, i.e. the figure or likeness, as the Gloss says.
14
Nam sicut convenientia in substantia constituit identitatem, convenientia in quantitate aequalitatem, ita convenientia in qualitate similitudinem, ut docet Aristot., V. Metaph. text. 16. et 20. (IV. c. 9. et 15.).
For just as agreement in substance constitutes identity, agreement in quantity equality, so agreement in quality [constitutes] likeness, as Aristotle teaches, Metaphysics V text. 16 and 20 (IV c. 9 and 15).
15
Codd. GKVaa addunt ergo.
Codices GKVaa add therefore.
16
Aristot., I. Magnor. Moral. c. 31. (34.): Proportionale in quatuor nihilominus perficitur; nam quemadmodum A ad B, ita C ad D. Cfr. V. Ethic. c. 3. — De differentia proportionis et proportionalitatis vide Boeth., II. de Arithmet. c. 40, et I. Sent. d. I. a. 3. q. I. ad I, et ibid. scholion.
Aristotle, Magna Moralia I c. 31 (34): The proportional is nonetheless completed in four [terms]; for as A is to B, so C is to D. Compare Ethics V c. 3. — On the difference between proportion and proportionality, see Boethius, On Arithmetic II c. 40, and I Sent. d. I a. 3 q. I ad I, and the scholion there.
17
Codd. IZaa potius.
Codices IZaa read rather.
18
Codd. K aa esset.
Codices K, aa read was (subjunctive, esset).
19
Cfr. hic lit. Magistri, c. 4. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 4. a. 1. ad 8; B. Albert., hic a. 9. seq.; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
Compare here the text of the Master, c. 4. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 3 m. 4 a. 1 ad 8; Blessed Albert, here a. 9 f.; Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text.
20
Ita codd. FH, in ceteris et edd. minus apte purificans. Nam sacerdos, qui tetigit cinerem vaccae rufae, immundus fuit et purificandus (Num. 19, 7. 10; 19, 21.), licet ipse alios mundaret.
So codices FH; in the rest and in the editions, less aptly, purifying. For the priest who touched the ash of the red heifer was unclean and to be purified (Num. 19, 7. 10; 19, 21), although he himself cleansed others.
21
Ita codd. KV, alii cum edd. poenam.
So codices KV; the others, with the editions, read penalty (accusative, poenam).
22
Vers. 27. — Hanc rationem insinuat Raban., II. in Num. 19, 6, ubi de ritu expiationis ex cinere vaccae rufae.
Verse 27. — Rabanus suggests this reason, II [Commentary] on Numbers 19, 6, where [he treats] of the rite of expiation from the ash of the red heifer.
23
Libr. XI. Registr. Epist. 64. respons. ad 10. interrog. August., ubi textus originalis etiam ibi aliquo modo culpas suas pro ibi culpam. — Superius post vel etiam cod. V repetit quia. — De hoc dub. cfr. Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 3. m. 4. a. 2; B. Albert., hic a. 12; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 5. quaestiunc. 3. ad 2; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 3. q. 2. ad 3.
[Gregory,] Register Book XI, Letter 64, in answer to the 10th question of Augustine, where the original text reads there too in some way their own faults for fault there. — Above, after or also, codex V repeats because. — On this doubt compare Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 3 m. 4 a. 2; Blessed Albert, here a. 12; St. Thomas, here q. I a. 5 little-question 3 ad 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 3 q. 2 ad 3.
24
Codd. FH bene donec. Paulo ante pro castra codd. AE ILVW castrum.
Codices FH rightly read until. A little before, for camp (plural) codices AE, ILVW read camp (singular).
25
Cod. Z supplet leprae. — Idem dub. solvit S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
Codex Z supplies of leprosy. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text.
26
Sive rationalis, cuius proprium est, ut ait Aristot., V. Topic. c. I, principare ad concupiscibile et irascibile etc. Cfr. tom. III. pag. 720, nota 1. — Codd. GK aa cognitiva. Pro tamen cod. cc (K a secunda manu) tantum.
Or rational, whose property is, as Aristotle says, Topics V c. I, to rule over the concupiscible and the irascible, etc. Compare vol. III p. 720, note 1. — Codices GK, aa read cognitive. For nevertheless codex cc (K by a second hand) reads only.
27
Dub. hoc solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 2. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. I. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. I. a. 3; Richard. a Med., hic a. 2. q. I. Locc. citt. solvitur etiam seq. dub.
This doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 5 m. 2 a. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here q. I a. 2 little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. I a. 3; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 2 q. I. In the places cited the following doubt is also resolved.
28
Ita codd. FHLP, alii codd. et ed. I, sive in prima sive in secunda propositione praemissa quaedam male omittunt; Vat. legit: Nam cum propter peccati demeritum et Dei praeceptum homo Sacramentis se subiicit, quia sunt gratiae signum, magis praecepto quam rei insensibili se subiicit: et ideo est ordinatio.
So codices FHLP; the other codices and edition I, whether in the first or the second proposition, wrongly omit some of the premised matter; the Vatican edition reads: For when on account of the demerit of sin and the precept of God a man subjects himself to the Sacraments, because they are a sign of grace, he subjects himself rather to the precept than to the insensible thing: and therefore it is an ordering.
29
Epist. I. Cor. 13, 12. — In Vat. desideratur videt Deum sine medio.
[The] Epistle, I Cor. 13, 12. — In the Vatican edition sees God without a medium is wanting.
30
Cod. U primus homo. Inferius pro indiguit codd. MO indigebat, cod. B indigens, edd. perperam indignus erat.
Codex U reads the first man. Below, for needed codices MO read was needing, codex B needing, the editions wrongly was unworthy.
31
Cfr. II. Sent. d. 23. a. 2. q. 3; Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. I. m. 2. a. 1; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar., Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.
Compare II Sent. d. 23 a. 2 q. 3; Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. I m. 2 a. 1; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, Richard of Mediavilla, here about the text.
32
Epist. I. Tim. 4, 8.
[The] Epistle, I Tim. 4, 8.
33
Cod. Z exercitatio. Circa finem responsionis post sed, refragantibus codd. F G H O X, alii et edd. addunt etiam, et cod. F substituit propter hoc pro per hoc.
Codex Z reads exercise (noun, exercitatio). Near the end of the response, after but, against codices F G H O X, the others and the editions add also, and codex F substitutes on account of this for through this.
34
Hoc dub. solvunt etiam Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 2. a. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 13; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1, ad 4.
This doubt is also resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 5 m. 2 a. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 13; St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 2 little-question 1, ad 4.
35
Libr. I. de Sacram. p. IX. c. 6.
[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments Book I, part IX, c. 6.
36
Hoc dub. etiam tractant Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 5. m. 3; B. Albert., hic a. 15; S. Thom., hic q. 1. a. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 1. a. 2. et circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 1. q. 1.
This doubt is also treated by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 5 m. 3; Blessed Albert, here a. 15; St. Thomas, here q. 1 a. 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 1 a. 2 and about the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 1 q. 1.
37
Cfr. III. Sent. d. 18. a. 2. q. 3. — Superius pro gratiae edd. gratia. Subinde pro et illa cod. G quam illa.
Compare III Sent. d. 18 a. 2 q. 3. — Above, for of grace (gratiae) the editions read grace (gratia). Thereupon, for and that codex G reads than that. ---