Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 1, Part 2, Dubia

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 1

Textus Latinus

p. 44

Dubia circa litteram Magistri.

Dub. I.

In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo dubitatur de hoc quod dicit Magister: Fuit tamen inter illa Sacramenta Sacramentum quoddam etc. Quare magis excipit Sacramentum circumcisionis quam alia? Videtur enim quod potius deberet excipere alia; quia, si Sacramenta posterius instituta sunt efficaciora⁷, videtur, quod potius deberet excipere Sacramenta, quae instituta sunt in Lege, quam circumcisionem, quae est instituta ante.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod circumcisio inter omnia Sacramenta Legis fuit efficacius Sacramentum. — Si quaeras, quae sit ratio sive causa efficiens; dico, quod pactio divina, quae in hac specialiter⁸ fuit, et ideo hoc Sacramentum efficacem habebat ordinationem ad curationem originalis. — Si autem quaeritur: quare magis in hoc fuit pactio? dicendum, quod ratio huius est duplex: prima, quia, sicut baptismus est ianua et fundamentum Sacramentorum novae legis, ita in circumcisione vetus lex sumsit fundamentum et exordium. — Alia ratio erat, quia circumcisio erat in remedium originalis peccati, quantum ad quod reus minime est culpabilis, et tamen multum impotens se iuvare, ut patet in parvulis; et ideo decuit divinam misericordiam, ut efficacius remedium praepararet⁹.

Dub. II.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Beda: Idem salutiferae curationis auxilium circumcisio etc.; quia, si hoc verum est, ergo in circumcisione ita datur gratia virtutum adiutrix, sicut in baptismo. Si tu dicas, quod non sequitur: idem, ergo hoc, immo est ibi consequens¹⁰; hoc non solvit: quia ipse excipit; sed exceptio non fit ab aliquo nisi intellecto universaliter; nihil enim est dictum: homo

p. 45

currit praeter Socratem¹¹: ergo intelligitur generaliter de omni remedio. — Item, baptismus ante passionem non aperiebat ianuam: ergo non habebat maiorem efficaciam.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod facienda est vis in verbo Bedae et quantum ad hoc quod dicit idem, et quantum ad hoc quod dicit curationis. Quantum ad hoc quod est idem, quia dicit convenientiam in forma, non in quantitate¹²; quantum ad hoc quod est curationis; quia dicit convenientiam in remedio contra malum, non prout habilitat ad bonum. — Et per hoc solvuntur illa duo obiecta. Vult enim dicere Beda, quod sicut baptismus digne suscipientem mundat ab originali et actuali, sic circumcisio. Unde quantum ad remotionem culpae est convenientia, sed non quantum ad apertionem ianuae nec quantum ad habilitatem, ratione cuius baptismus semper excessit¹³.

Dub. III.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Tamen in sinu Abrahae post mortem; quid sit iste sinus Abrahae. Et Glossa dicit Lucae decimo sexto¹⁴: «Sinus Abrahae est requies beatorum pauperum»; sed illa est regnum caelorum, et hoc est visio Dei: ergo circumcisi, qui moriebantur, habebant visionem beatam, cui contradicit sequens littera¹⁵.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod sinus Abrahae potest dici requies, in qua fuit Abraham; et hoc attribuitur Abrahae propter perfectionis fidei exemplum quasi primarium. — Vel sinus Abrahae dicitur requies Dei Patris, qui dicitur Abraham, quia summus pater est omnium, maxime fidelium¹⁶. Utroque modo dictus dicit idem, ex diversa tamen ratione dicendi. Dupliciter potest dici requies: aut per ablationem omnis mali, et sic fuit locus, in quo sancti Patres exspectabant Christum, et ita intelligit hic; aut per collationem omnis boni, et sic est locus gloriae et paradisus, ad quem locum nunc optamus et oramus, mortuorum animas pervenire¹⁷.

Dub. IV.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Magister: Nec ei soli praecepta fuit circumcisio, sed et semini eius. Videtur enim male dicere: quia secundum hoc videtur, quod Ismael¹⁸ et omnes de stirpe Abrahae tenerentur ad circumcisionem. Si tu dicas mihi, quod tenebantur illi soli, de quibus nasciturus erat Christus: ergo secundum hoc illi soli de tribu Iuda fuissent obligati. — Item videtur, quod non illi soli, sed omnes: quia, si circumcisio erat in remedium, et tale remedium, quod omnibus proderat, et omnes eo aequaliter indigebant: ergo videtur, quod cum circumcisio non esset bona, nisi quia praecepta, quod omnibus esset praecepta, cum omnibus prodesset. Sed contra hoc est, quod, sicut dicit Hugo¹⁹ et Gregorius super prologum Iob, «Iob non legitur circumcisus, et tamen creditur fuisse de stirpe Esau».

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod in datione circumcisionis duo considerantur, scilicet institutio et praeceptum. Institutio fuit contra morbum originalis peccati, ut esset remedium; et sicut morbus ille omnes respicit, ita et institutio. Sed praeceptio fuit in pactum; et Dominus pactum fecit cum Abraham de certitudine nativitatis Christi et de terra promissionis²⁰: et ideo illi soli intelliguntur praecepto astricti, ad quos se extendit pactum, et hi fuerunt omnes filii Israel. Et ideo omnes poterant circumcidi et omnibus erat utilis; sed hi soli tenebantur, ad quos se extendit pactum et qui terram recepturi erant. Et ideo, cum dicit Magister, quod data est

p. 46

semini¹ sub praecepto; stricte accipit semen pro his qui de Iacob fuerunt generati. — Et sic patet responsio de Iob. Tamen non est omnino certum, de qua stirpe fuerit, quia aliqui dicunt, quod fuit de Nachor². Quod autem Abraham omnes vernaculos et Ismaelem circumcidit, hoc fuit iustitiae superabundantis.

Dub. V.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod fiebat die octavo. Videtur enim non bene dictum, quia, dato quod parvulus natus esset in Sabbato, praeceptum Sabbati erat maius, unde et in Decalogo continetur³: ergo magis deberent differre quam in Sabbato circumcidere: ergo non in die octavo.

Ad hoc respondent quidam, quod ob reverentiam Sabbati debebat differri, et praeceptum de Sabbato datum praeiudicabat illi. Sed tamen non oportet hic dubitare, quia Dominus dicit Ioannis septimo⁴, quod circumcisionem accipit homo in Sabbato, ut non solvatur lex Moysi. Propter hoc dicendum, quod opus circumcisionis propter curationem mentis erat spirituale, et ita Sabbatum non solvebat nec ei repugnabat, quia prohibebatur in Lege solum opus servile⁵.

Dub. VI.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod fiebat cultro petrino. Videtur enim male dicere, quia in institutione circumcisionis factae ipsi Abrahae nulla fit mentio de cultro petrino⁶. — Item, quae utilitas vel necessitas de cultro petrino, cum ferrum sit multo aptius?

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod culter petrinus est de substantia, sed quantum ad observantiam, non quantum ad efficaciam nec quantum ad significantiam^7b. Et hoc patet, quia, si aliquis circumcideretur cultro ferreo, idem esset effectus; et in huius rei signum non fuit facta mentio in institutione, fuit tamen in sequenti praecepti renovatione facta sub Iosue, quinto^8b: Fac tibi cultros lapideos, in quo significatur, quod per petram Christum omnes circumcidendi erant; significatur et duritia ipsorum et duritia Legis. Hoc autem congruitatis erat, non necessitatis; unde dicitur, quod Iudaei non circumcidunt nunc cultris petrinis^9b.

Dub. VII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod duae sunt res huius Sacramenti. Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si duae sunt res, ergo videtur, quod duplex sit hic Sacramentum, aut Sacramentum est multiplex.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod res huius Sacramenti duobus modis est: uno modo illa quam significat et donat; alio modo illa quam significat faciendam. Illa autem res erat propria et principalis, quam significabat et donabat; et haec erat una principaliter, scilicet curatio ab originali. Illa vero, quam significabat faciendam, contingit esse duplicem secundum duplicem statum, scilicet viae et gloriae, secundum quod duplex est spiritualis circumcisio, scilicet a culpa et a miseria; et utraque fit per petram Christum, et sic in octava^10b.

Dub. VIII.

Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Abrahae nihil contulit circumcisio. Videtur enim falsum dicere: quia Abraham melius et fidelius fecit quam alii: ergo videtur, quod aliis nihil tribuat, si sibi non tribuit, de quo magis videtur.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod nihil conferre, hoc potest esse dupliciter: aut quia non est indigentia a parte recipientis, aut quia non est quod adiuvet in ea; et ex prima causa nihil contulit, non quia esset in se inefficax, sed quia Abraham non indigebat^11b.

---

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 this which the Master says: Yet among those Sacraments there was a certain Sacrament, etc. Why does he except the Sacrament of circumcision rather than others? For it seems that he ought rather to except others; because, if the Sacraments instituted later are more efficacious⁷, it seems that he ought rather to except the Sacraments that were instituted under the Law, than circumcision, which was instituted before.

I respond: It must be said that circumcision was, among all the Sacraments of the Law, the more efficacious Sacrament. — If you ask what is the reason or efficient cause; I say that it is the divine pact, which was especially in this⁸, and therefore this Sacrament had an efficacious ordination toward the cure of original [sin]. — But if it is asked: why was the pact rather in this? it must be said that the reason for this is twofold: first, because, just as baptism is the gate and foundation of the Sacraments of the new law, so in circumcision the old law took its foundation and beginning. — The other reason was that circumcision was for a remedy against original sin, with respect to which the guilty one is least culpable, and yet very powerless to help himself, as is plain in little ones; and therefore it befitted the divine mercy that it should prepare a more efficacious remedy⁹.

Doubt II.

Likewise it is asked about this which Bede says: The same aid of saving cure, circumcision, etc.; because, if this be true, then in circumcision the grace that aids the virtues is given just as in baptism. If you say that it does not follow: "the same, therefore this," but rather there is here a consequent¹⁰; this does not resolve it: because he himself excepts; but an exception is not made from anything unless it be understood universally; for nothing is said [when one says]: a man

runs except Socrates¹¹: therefore it is understood generally of every remedy. — Likewise, baptism before the Passion did not open the gate: therefore it did not have a greater efficacy.

I respond: It must be said that emphasis must be placed on Bede's word both as regards what he says, the same, and as regards what he says, of cure. As regards what is the same, because he asserts an agreement in form, not in quantity¹²; as regards what is of cure, because he asserts an agreement in the remedy against evil, not insofar as it enables for the good. — And by this those two objections are resolved. For Bede means that, just as baptism cleanses the worthy recipient from original and actual [sin], so does circumcision. Whence, as regards the removal of fault there is an agreement, but not as regards the opening of the gate, nor as regards the enabling, by reason of which baptism always surpassed it¹³.

Doubt III.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says: Yet in the bosom of Abraham after death; what this bosom of Abraham is. And the Gloss says, on Luke chapter sixteen¹⁴: «The bosom of Abraham is the rest of the blessed poor»; but that is the kingdom of heaven, and this is the vision of God: therefore the circumcised who died had the blessed vision, which the following text contradicts¹⁵.

I respond: It must be said that the bosom of Abraham can be called the rest in which Abraham was; and this is attributed to Abraham on account of the example of the perfection of his faith, as it were the primary one. — Or the bosom of Abraham is called the rest of God the Father, who is called Abraham, because he is the highest father of all, especially of the faithful¹⁶. Said in either way, it means the same, yet from a different manner of speaking. Rest can be spoken of in two ways: either by the removal of every evil, and thus it was the place in which the holy Fathers awaited Christ, and so he understands it here; or by the bestowal of every good, and thus it is the place of glory and paradise, to which place we now desire and pray that the souls of the dead may come¹⁷.

Doubt IV.

Likewise it is asked about this which the Master says: Nor was circumcision commanded to him alone, but also to his seed. For it seems to be ill said: because according to this it seems that Ishmael¹⁸ and all of the stock of Abraham were bound to circumcision. If you say to me that those alone were bound, of whom Christ was to be born: therefore according to this those alone of the tribe of Judah would have been obligated. — Likewise it seems that not those alone, but all: because, if circumcision was for a remedy, and such a remedy as profited all, and all alike needed it: therefore it seems that, since circumcision would not be good except because commanded, it would be commanded to all, since it would profit all. But against this is that, as Hugh¹⁹ and Gregory say on the prologue of Job, «Job is not read to have been circumcised, and yet is believed to have been of the stock of Esau».

I respond: It must be said that in the giving of circumcision two things are considered, namely institution and precept. The institution was against the disease of original sin, that it might be a remedy; and as that disease regards all, so also the institution. But the precept was unto a pact; and the Lord made a pact with Abraham concerning the certainty of the nativity of Christ and concerning the land of promise²⁰: and therefore those alone are understood to be bound by the precept to whom the pact extended, and these were all the sons of Israel. And therefore all could be circumcised and it was useful to all; but these alone were bound, to whom the pact extended and who were to receive the land. And therefore, when the Master says that it was given

to the seed¹ under precept; he takes seed strictly for those who were begotten of Jacob. — And thus the response concerning Job is plain. Yet it is not altogether certain of what stock he was, since some say that he was of Nachor². But that Abraham circumcised all his home-born slaves and Ishmael, this was of superabounding justice.

Doubt V.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that it was done on the eighth day. For it seems not well said, because, granted that a little one were born on the Sabbath, the precept of the Sabbath was greater, whence it is also contained in the Decalogue³: therefore they ought rather to defer than to circumcise on the Sabbath: therefore not on the eighth day.

To this some respond that out of reverence for the Sabbath it ought to be deferred, and the precept given concerning the Sabbath prejudged it. But yet there is no need here to doubt, because the Lord says, in John chapter seven⁴, that a man receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses be not broken. On account of this it must be said that the work of circumcision, on account of the cure of the mind, was spiritual, and so it did not break the Sabbath nor was repugnant to it, because in the Law only servile work⁵ was forbidden.

Doubt VI.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that it was done with a stone knife. For it seems to be ill said, because in the institution of the circumcision made to Abraham himself no mention is made of a stone knife⁶. — Likewise, what utility or necessity is there of a stone knife, since iron is much more apt?

I respond: It must be said that the stone knife belongs to the substance, but as regards observance, not as regards efficacy nor as regards signification^7b. And this is plain, because, if anyone were circumcised with an iron knife, the effect would be the same; and as a sign of this thing no mention was made of it in the institution, yet it was made in the subsequent renewal of the precept made under Joshua, chapter five^8b: Make thee knives of stone, in which it is signified that all were to be circumcised through the rock [which is] Christ; both their hardness and the hardness of the Law are also signified. But this was a matter of fittingness, not of necessity; whence it is said that the Jews do not now circumcise with stone knives^9b.

Doubt VII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that there are two things (res) of this Sacrament. For it seems to be ill said: because, if there are two things, then it seems that this Sacrament is twofold, or that the Sacrament is manifold.

I respond: It must be said that the thing (res) of this Sacrament is in two ways: in one way that which it signifies and gives; in another way that which it signifies as to be done. But that thing which it signified and gave was the proper and principal one; and this was one principally, namely the cure from original [sin]. But that which it signified as to be done happens to be twofold according to a twofold state, namely of the way and of glory, according as the spiritual circumcision is twofold, namely from fault and from misery; and each is brought about through the rock [which is] Christ, and thus on the eighth [day]^10b.

Doubt VIII.

Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that circumcision conferred nothing on Abraham. For it seems to say something false: because Abraham did better and more faithfully than others: therefore it seems that it bestows nothing on others, if it did not bestow on himself, of whom it seems the more [likely].

I respond: It must be said that to confer nothing can be in two ways: either because there is no need on the part of the recipient, or because there is no that which would aid in it; and from the first cause it conferred nothing, not because it was in itself inefficacious, but because Abraham did not need it^11b.

---

Apparatus Criticus

7
Vide infra d. 2. a. 1. q. 2. — Quod circumcisio ante Legem sit instituta, dictum est supra a. 2. q. I. ad 4. — Superius post quare non pauci codd. addunt ergo.
See below d. 2 a. 1 q. 2. — That circumcision was instituted before the Law has been said above, a. 2 q. I ad 4. — Above, after why, not a few codices add therefore.
8
Cfr. supra p. I. q. 4. in fine et q. 5. — Superius pro in hac cod. Y in hoc.
Compare above, part I q. 4 at the end and q. 5. — Above, for in this (fem.) codex Y reads in this (neut.).
9
Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. i. m. 7. a. 5. § I.
The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 1 m. 7 a. 5 § I.
10
Cod. U fallacia consequentis, de qua vide tom. I. pag. 628, nota 1. et pag. 691, nota 5. — Mox cod. F excepit pro excipit.
Codex U reads the fallacy of the consequent, on which see vol. I p. 628, note 1, and p. 691, note 5. — Shortly after, codex F reads he excepted for he excepts.
11
In Tractatu de dictionibus syncategorematicis (inter opera Petri Hispani), c. de Dictionibus exceptivis, circa illud quod excipitur datur haec regula: Dictio exceptiva excipit partem actualiter existentem in suo toto. Ratio est, quia exceptio est extractio alicuius ab aliquo; sed ubicumque est extractio, ibi est actualiter aliquid quod aufertur, et aliquid quod relinquitur... ideo omnes istae sunt incongruae et falsae: omnis equus praeter Socratem currit, et: homo praeter Socratem currit; quia exceptum non est pars actualiter eius, a quo fit exceptio... et licet Socrates sit pars hominis, tamen non est actualiter in suppositione hominis, nisi addatur signum universale [omnis] ad hominem; ideo non sequitur: homo currit, ergo Socrates currit.
In the Tractate On Syncategorematic Words (among the works of Peter of Spain), the chapter on Exceptive Words, concerning that which is excepted this rule is given: An exceptive word excepts a part actually existing in its whole. The reason is that an exception is the extraction of something from something; but wherever there is extraction, there is actually something which is taken away, and something which is left behind... therefore all these are incongruous and false: "every horse except Socrates runs," and: "a man except Socrates runs"; because the excepted is not actually a part of that from which the exception is made... and although Socrates is a part of "man," yet he is not actually in the supposition of "man," unless the universal sign [every] be added to "man"; therefore it does not follow: "a man runs, therefore Socrates runs."
12
Vide supra pag. 29, nota 7. — Pro est idem plures codd. dicit idem, et post quia codd. FH repetunt idem. Mox pro quod est cod. I quod dicit.
See above p. 29, note 7. — For is the same very many codices read says the same, and after because codices FH repeat the same. Shortly after, for which is codex I reads which says.
13
Cod. E excellit. — Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 3. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 7. a. 5. § 2.
Codex E reads excels. — Compare above a. 2 q. 3. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 4 m. 7 a. 5 § 2.
14
Vers. 22. — Glossa, ordinaria apud Strabum Lyranumque, delibata est ex Beda in hunc loc. — Pro pauperum Vat., etiam contra textum originalem, parvum; quae lectio per se videtur esse magis conveniens.
Verse 22. — The ordinary Gloss, in Strabo and Lyra, is drawn from Bede on this passage. — For of the poor the Vatican edition, even against the original text, reads little; which reading of itself seems to be more fitting.
15
Scilicet altera pars verbi Bedae hic in lit. Magist., c. 7. allegata: Supernae pacis ingressum spe felici exspectabant.
Namely the other part of Bede's word, here cited in the text of the Master, c. 7: They awaited with happy hope the entry of the supernal peace.
16
August., IV. de Anima et eius orig. c. 16. n. 24: Sinum Abrahae intellige remotam sedem quietis atque secretam, ubi est Abraham. Et ideo Abrahae dictum, non quod ipsius tantum sit, sed quod ipse pater multarum gentium sit positus [Gen. 17, 5.], quibus est ad imitandum fidei principatu propositus, sicut Deum Abraham et Deum Isaac et Deum Iacob se Deus vocari voluit [Exod. 3, 6.], cum sit innumerabilium Deus. Cfr. Serm. 14. (alias 110. de Tempore) c. 3. n. 4. — Superius pro in qua fuit codd. G I bb (F a secunda manu) in qua est, vel fuit.
Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin IV c. 16 n. 24: Understand the bosom of Abraham to be the remote and secret seat of rest, where Abraham is. And therefore it is called Abraham's, not because it is his alone, but because he himself is set as the father of many nations [Gen. 17, 5], to whom he is set forth for imitation by the headship of faith, just as God willed himself to be called the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob [Exod. 3, 6], though he be the God of innumerable [others]. Compare Sermon 14 (otherwise 110, on the Season) c. 3 n. 4. — Above, for in which he was codices G I bb (F by a second hand) read in which he is, or was.
17
Cfr. infra d. 45. a. 1. q. 1. seq. — De ipso dubio vide B. Albert., hic a. 20; S. Thom. et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.
Compare below d. 45 a. 1 q. 1 f. — On this doubt itself see Blessed Albert, here a. 20; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text.
18
Gen. 16, 11. seqq. — Inferius post obligati cod. U addit et non alii.
Gen. 16, 11 ff. — Below, after obligated, codex U adds and not others.
19
Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XII. c. 2: Nam et Iob secundum quosdam de Esau stirpe fuisse creditur, qui tamen circumcisus fuisse non legitur. Gregor., Praefat. in Iob, c. 2. n. 3, tantum dicit, quod Iob fuit «homo gentilis, homo sine Lege».
[Hugh of St. Victor,] On the Sacraments Book I, part XII, c. 2: For Job too, according to some, is believed to have been of the stock of Esau, who nevertheless is not read to have been circumcised. Gregory, Preface on Job c. 2 n. 3, says only that Job was «a gentile man, a man without the Law».
20
Gen. 17, 7. seqq.
Gen. 17, 7 ff.
1
Codd. FH (bb a secunda manu) semini Abrahae.
Codices FH (bb by a second hand) read to the seed of Abraham.
2
Hieronym., Libr. hebraic. quaest. in Gen. 22, 20: Primogenitus Nachor, fratris Abraham, de Melcha uxore eius, filia Aran, natus est Us, de cuius stirpe Iob descendit, sicut scriptum est in exordio voluminis eius: Vir fuit in terra Us, nomine Iob. Male igitur quidam aestimant, Iob de genere esse Esau; siquidem illud quod in fine libri ipsius habetur [secundum Septuaginta] Eo quod de Syro sermone translatus est; et quartus sit ab Esau, et reliqua quae ibi continentur, in Hebraeis voluminibus non habentur. Cfr. ibid. in 36, 33. Hieronymum sequuntur Isidor. de Ortu et obitu Patrum, c. 24. n. 38; Alcuin., Interrogat. in Gen. interrog. 210. Alteram sententiam tenent praeter Origenem, quem allegat Hieronym., Epist. 72. (alias 126.) n. 2, Athanas., Synopsis Script. S. n. 25; Chrysost., Homil. 7. de Poenitentia, n. 1; Ambros. in Ps. 36, 29. n. 63, et August. XVIII. de Civ. Dei, c. 47. — Mox respicitur Gen. 17, 23. seqq. — Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 3. a. 2. § 1. et m. 4. a. 1; B. Albert., hic a. 22; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 2. quaestiunc. 1; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 2.
Jerome, Book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis 22, 20: The first-born of Nachor, the brother of Abraham, by Melcha his wife, daughter of Aran, was Us, of whose stock Job descended, as is written in the opening of his book: "There was a man in the land of Us, by name Job." Wrongly therefore do some judge Job to be of the race of Esau; since that which is had at the end of his book [according to the Septuagint], "Because he was translated from the Syriac tongue; and that he is the fourth from Esau," and the rest that is there contained, is not had in the Hebrew volumes. Compare the same place on 36, 33. Jerome is followed by Isidore, On the Birth and Death of the Fathers, c. 24 n. 38; Alcuin, Questions on Genesis question 210. The other opinion is held, besides Origen, whom Jerome cites, Letter 72 (otherwise 126) n. 2, by Athanasius, Synopsis of Holy Scripture n. 25; Chrysostom, Homily 7 On Penitence n. 1; Ambrose on Ps. 36, 29 n. 63, and Augustine, On the City of God XVIII c. 47. — Shortly after, Gen. 17, 23 ff. is referred to. — The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 4 m. 3 a. 2 § 1 and m. 4 a. 1; Blessed Albert, here a. 22; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 2 little-question 1; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3 a. 2.
3
Cfr. Exod. 20, 8. et Lev. 19, 3.
Compare Exod. 20, 8 and Lev. 19, 3.
4
Vers. 23.
Verse 23.
5
Lev. 23, 3. et 28; Num. 29, 1. — Cfr. de hoc dubio Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 6. a. 1; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 1. ad 2; Petr. a Tar., hic q. 3. a. 3. et circa lit.
Lev. 23, 3 and 28; Num. 29, 1. — On this doubt compare Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 4 m. 6 a. 1; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 3 little-question 1 ad 2; Peter of Tarentaise, here q. 3 a. 3 and about the text.
6
Gen. 17, 10. seqq. — Edd. addunt cum ferrum sit multo aptius.
Gen. 17, 10 ff. — The editions add since iron is much more apt.
7b
Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2. — Superius pro est de substantia plurimi codd. non est de substantia, quorum plures subinde pro sed quantum substituunt nec quantum vel non quantum (melius cod. N nisi quantum... nunquam quantum ad efficaciam) et pauci tandem sed quantum ad significantiam pro nec quantum ad significantiam.
Compare above a. 2 q. 2. — Above, for belongs to the substance very many codices read does not belong to the substance, of which several then for but as regards substitute nor as regards or not as regards (better codex N unless as regards... never as regards efficacy), and a few finally but as regards signification for nor as regards signification.
8b
Vers. 2. — Mox respicitur I. Cor. 10, 4: Petra autem erat Christus, et Act. 7, 51: Dura cervice etc.
Verse 2. — Shortly after, I Cor. 10, 4 is referred to: And the rock was Christ, and Acts 7, 51: Stiff-necked etc.
9b
Idem dub. solvit Alex. Hal., S. p. IV. q. 4. m. 6. a. 4; S. Thom., hic q. 2. a. 3. quaestiunc. 3; Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.; Richard. a Med., hic a. 6. q. 2.
The same doubt is resolved by Alexander of Hales, Summa part IV q. 4 m. 6 a. 4; St. Thomas, here q. 2 a. 3 little-question 3; Peter of Tarentaise, here about the text; Richard of Mediavilla, here a. 6 q. 2.
10b
Cfr. supra pag. 38, nota 12. — Edd. addunt die. Aliquanto superius pro erat propria codd. K aa est propria.
Compare above p. 38, note 12. — The editions add day. Somewhat above, for was proper codices K, aa read is proper.
11b
Vide infra lit. Magistri, d. IV. c. 5. 7, ubi simile dicit de illis qui iam sanctificati spiritu ad baptismum accedunt.
See below the text of the Master, d. IV c. 5. 7, where he says the like concerning those who, already sanctified in spirit, approach baptism. ---