Bonaventure — Opera Omnia

Dist. 3, Part 2, Art. 3, Q. 2

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 3

Textus Latinus

p. 86

Quaestio II. Utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii.

Secundo quaeritur, utrum circumcisio cessaverit ante promulgationem Evangelii. Et quod sic, videtur:

1. Matthaei undecimo¹: Lex et Prophetae usque ad Ioannem etc.; aut hoc dictum est inclusive, aut exclusive; sed quocumque modo hoc dictum est, cum defecerit Ioannes et eius baptismus ante passionem, videtur, quod Lex defecerit et Sacramenta legalia ante promulgationem Evangelii.

2. Item, ratio, quare circumcisio cessavit, fuit Legis impletio et legalium; sed haec omnia impleta sunt in passione, cum dictum est²: Consummatum est, et velum templi scissum est: ergo si hoc fuit ante Evangelii promulgationem, ante defecit — et hoc trahitur ex pluribus locis de libro Quaestionum novi et veteris Testamenti — ut Magister dicit in littera.

3. Item, specialis ratio cessationis circumcisionis fuit institutio nobilioris Sacramenti loco eius; sed baptismus est institutus ante passionem et Evangelii promulgationem³: ergo ante cessavit circumcisio.

4. Item, ad hoc est auctoritas Hieronymi ad Augustinum, quae ponitur in Glossa ad Galatas secundo⁴. Dicit Hieronymus: « Ego pronuntio, quod sint utique mortiferae caerimoniae Iudaeorum fidelibus; finis enim Legis Christus est ad iustitiam » etc.

Sed contra: 1. Post passionem Paulus circumcidit Timotheum Actuum decimo sexto⁵, et in hoc non reprehenditur; et servavit votum Nazaraeorum, Actuum vigesimo primo: ergo nondum erat malum, nec circumcisio cessaverat. Si dicas, quod fecit propter vitandum scandalum⁶; contra: propter vitandum scandalum non est faciendum contra veritatem vitae vel doctrinae: ergo si hoc erat malum de se, nunquam ex hoc excusatur, quod non peccaverit.

2. Item, nullus obligatur ad id quod ignorat et non potest scire⁷; sed multi erant, ad quos non pervenerat institutio baptismi: ergo illi non tenebantur baptizari: ergo si Deus non reliquit eos sine remedio, adhuc post passionem circumcisio habuit effectum et statum.

3. Item, Augustinus ad Hieronymum⁸: Circumcisio et cetera legalia non erant noxia, licet iam non essent significandis futuris necessaria; magis noxium erat ea quasi noxia prohibere.

Est igitur hic quaestio, cum videatur hic esse multiplex contradictio, quid tenendum sit. — Nam Petrus videtur sibi contrarius, qui Actuum decimo quinto⁹ dictavit, quod non erant legalia servanda, et postmodum iudaizabat, sicut dicitur ad Galatas secundo.

Item, Paulus videtur sibi contrarius, qui reprehendit Petrum, et postmodum circumcidit Timotheum et servavit votum Nazaraeorum. De primo habetur Actuum decimo sexto¹⁰, de secundo Actuum vigesimo primo.

Item, Petrus videtur contrarius Paulo, et e converso, quia ad Galatas secundo¹¹ dicitur, quod Paulus restitit Petro in faciem: ergo dissensio videtur in hoc fuisse inter columnas Ecclesiae.

Item, Hieronymus videtur contrarius Augustino, sicut patet in Glossa ad Galatas secundo¹²; et quod aperte contradicant, illud apparet in eorum Epistolis, quibus sibi respondent. Unde Hieronymus in Epistola ad Augustinum: « Tu dicis legalia observare bonum, ego affirmo malum, non modo eis qui ex gentili, sed etiam qui ex Iudaico populo crediderunt ».

Conclusio. Ante promulgationem Evangelii legalia non cessaverunt quantum ad observantiam nec quantum ad efficaciam universaliter, quia in distantibus probabiliter potuerunt habere efficaciam.

Respondeo: Ad praedictorum intelligentiam aperienda est via duplex, quia praecipui doctores, scilicet

p. 87

Hieronymus et Augustinus, timuerunt¹³ in huius quaestionis determinatione.

Et primo ad intelligendam solutionem Hieronymi sciendum est, quod beatus Hieronymus duo tempora intellexit in novae legis datione et Sacramentorum suorum institutione, unum scilicet tempus condendi Evangelium, quod incepit ab adventu Christi usque ad passionis consummationem; aliud fuit promulgationis Evangelii, quod incepit ab adventu Spiritus sancti usque ad finem mundi. Similiter intellexit, quod mandata legalia et caerimonialia dupliciter contingit servare: vel ex praecepto tanquam necessaria ad salutem, vel ex dispensatione, non quia bona sint, sed quia inde elicitur bonum. — Concessit ergo Hieronymus, legalia, maxime circumcisionem, servari debere, quousque veritas Evangelii promulgaretur, et institutio novae legis aperiretur, et hoc in toto¹ primo tempore. Sed illis incipientibus aperiri, illa cessabant, sicut ista innotescebant, ita ut nulli post acceptam notitiam veritatis liceret servare huiusmodi Sacramenta aliquo modo, nisi illis solum, ad quos non pervenerat praedicatio Evangelii, vel etiam ipsis Apostolis maioribus ex dispensatione et pia quadam simulatione; ceteri autem erant transgressores, qualitercumque servarent.

Et ad hoc ponendum movit eum auctoritas sacrae Scripturae et auctoritas Ecclesiae. Auctoritas sacrae Scripturae: nam omnes Apostoli consenserunt, Actuum decimo quinto² legalia non esse servanda. Rursus, videbat, Apostolos alicubi post illam sententiam servasse, et dicebat, primam sententiam datam esse secundum rigorem veritatis, sed observationem factam esse secundum simulationem pietatis, secundum quam dicit Apostolus primae ad Corinthios nono³: Omnibus omnia factus sum, Iudaeis tanquam Iudaeus etc.; et hoc pia quadam simulatione. — Auctoritas Ecclesiae movit, quia sancti Patres communiter damnaverunt haeresim Ebionis et Cerinthi, qui dixerunt, legalia cum Evangelio esse servanda; et propter hoc dicebant, pia quadam et dispensatoria simulatione esse servata propter infirmitatem Iudaeorum. Sic dixit Hieronymus, quod Petrus servabat legalia quadam simulatione, secundum quod Apostolus dicit ad Galatas secundo⁴, ita ut et Barnabas duceretur in hanc simulationem. Et dixit etiam, quod Paulus pia quadam simulatione reprehendit Petrum, qui non peccabat; sicut Petrus condescendebat Iudaeis in legalium observatione, ita Paulus in illius observantiae reprehensione gentilibus⁵. Et ita nec Petrus peccavit in male observando, nec Paulus in procaciter reprehendendo, sicut Porphyrius haereticus Paulum arguebat, quod Apostolorum principi procaciter insultasset. — Ecce haec est positio Hieronymi et ratio positionis.

Augustinus autem alio modo solvit. Ad cuius solutionem intelligendam notandum est, quod Augustinus triplex tempus intellexit, scilicet tempus condendi Evangelium et promulgandi conditum et custodiendi iam promulgatum. Primum tempus fuit ab adventu Christi usque ad passionis consummationem, et in hoc tempore sunt legalia infirmata et in morte Christi mortua. Secundum tempus fuit a passione Christi usque ad divulgationem Evangelii in omnes gentes, quando potuit dici: In omnem terram exivit⁶ etc.; et hoc tempore sunt legalia ad tumulum deducta. Tertium tempus fuit ab illo tempore usque ad finem, in quo legalia sunt quasi in tumulo clausa.

Ulterius notandum, quod triplici de causa possunt aliqua observari, scilicet propter salutis necessitatem, propter honestatem, propter proximi infirmitatem. — Dixit ergo Augustinus⁷, quod primo tempore legalia servari potuerunt tanquam viva propter salutis utilitatem. Secundo tempore servari potuerunt etiam ab his qui audierunt Evangelium, propter honestatem, quia cum honore adducenda erat synagoga ad tumulum, non quasi idololatra statim abiicienda. Et hoc etiam tempore servari poterant propter proximi utilitatem, ne Iudaei a fide revocarentur. Tertio tempore nullo modo sunt servanda, quia qui iam servat non est materni corpusculi honorator, sed sepulturae impudens revelator⁸.

Et ita posuit, quod Petrus et Paulus uterque servaverunt non tantum propter vitandum scandalum proximi, sed etiam ad honorem debitum matri impendendum; et quod non tantum simulatorie, sed etiam veraciter observaverunt, non propter salutis necessitatem, quia sciebant, ea non esse ad salutem necessaria. — Similiter posuit, quod Petrus veraciter, non simulatorie, reprehensus fuit a Paulo, non quia legalia servabat, sed quia exemplo suo gentiles iudaizare cogebat⁹. — Ratio autem sua

p. 88

haec fuit: nam si fuit ibi tantum simulatio in observatione, ergo propter scandalum proximi vitandum liceret relinquere veritatem. Et iterum; quare modo non similiter liceret? quod nullus diceret. Rursus, de reprehensione Pauli, si simulate tantum reprehendit Petrum, falsum ergo dixit et mentitus est, ad Galatas secundo¹, et quod non ambulabat ad veritatem Evangelii, et quod reprehensibilis erat. Sed quis audeat dicere, quod Paulus in doctrina veritatis dispensatorie sit mentitus²? Quod si aliquis det, patebit via haereticis, ut alia dicant simulate dicta.

Et quia ipse Augustinus, doctor egregius, verbis Hieronymi addit — nec mirum, quia non est inconveniens, quod posteriores prioribus addant — ideo modo solvendi Augustini tanquam sufficientiori adhaerent qui melius sentiunt. Unde Hugo de sancto Victore³ dicit, quod circumcisio et alia legalia quantum ad efficaciam cessaverunt post passionem, sed quantum ad observantiam cessaverunt post Evangelii promulgationem. Et praeter rationem Augustini aliam rationem assignat, quia nec natura nec ratio sustinet repentinas immutationes; et ne videretur lex nova praecipitanter data, cum maturitate subintravit, et vetera transierunt.

Ex his patet responsio ad primum quod quaeritur. Concedo enim, sicut rationes ostendunt, quod legalia quantum ad observantiam non cessaverunt ante promulgationem; nec etiam quantum ad efficaciam universaliter, quia creditur, sicut dicit Bernardus⁴, quod habuerunt efficaciam in his qui distabant et praeceptis adhuc restringi non poterant; in his autem, qui scire poterant, nullam efficaciam habebant.

1. Ad illud ergo quod obiicitur, quod Lex et Prophetae usque ad Ioannem etc.; dicendum, quod illud intelligitur inclusive, non quia tunc statim defecerit, sed quia ex tunc legalis observantia infirmari coepit.

2. Ad illud quod obiicitur de impletione, dicendum, quod impletio fuit causa cessationis; sed causa ista non ponebat hunc effectum, nisi claresceret⁵; veritas enim excludit umbram tantum, dum clarificatur, quia nullus tenetur ad incognitum.

3. Ad illud quod obiicitur de institutione baptismi, dicendum, sicut tactum est, quod institutio erat causa evacuationis, sed actu non faciebat cessare, nisi prius pateret Sacramenti utilitas et necessitas. Sed haec non fuit indicta in aperto usque post passionem. Dominus enim dicit Nicodemo⁶: Nisi quis renatus fuerit etc.; sed hoc dixit quasi consilium in occulto.

4. Ad illud quod obiicitur de Hieronymo, dicendum, quod Augustinus dictis Hieronymi addidit et clarius hoc vidit, et ideo eius dictis standum est. Nam et ipse Hieronymus⁷ addendum et corrigendum sibi commisit.

Ex his patent repugnantiae. Nam Petrus primo dictavit, legalia non esse observanda, et ideo non esse gentibus imponenda. Sed tamen postmodum ipse servavit, ostendens, propter statum, in quo aliquando fuerant, esse honoranda. — Idem ipsum de Paulo est dicendum.

De controversia Petri et Pauli dicendum, quod idem senserunt omnino, et tamen Petrus iuste⁸ reprehensus est, quia reprehensibilis erat, non quia male faceret, sed aliquantulum incaute; et ille defectus circumspectionis credo quod fuit in eo aliqua culpa, licet non esset mortalis. Et divina dispensatione hoc permissum est, ut, dum Petrus reprehensus non resisteret, clarius veritas pateret; et⁹ quod Petrus exemplum imitandi in actu suo nollet dare. Unde erat reprehensibilis, id est utilis reprehendi et dignus, quia ad veritatem Evangelii non ambulabat, id est non usquequaque, quia ex hoc veritas conculcabatur; et ideo Paulus bene fecit et utiliter, qui coram omnibus eum reprehendit. Nec est excusandus Petrus ab una levi negligentia, ne Paulus accusetur gravius mendacii culpa. — Ad ultimam contrarietatem patet responsio ex praedictis¹⁰.

---

English Translation

p. 86

Question II. Whether circumcision ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel.

Secondly it is asked whether circumcision ceased before the promulgation of the Gospel. And that it did, it seems:

1. Matthew eleven¹: The Law and the Prophets were until John etc.; either this is said inclusively or exclusively; but in whatever way this is said, since John and his baptism ceased before the passion, it seems that the Law ceased and the legal Sacraments before the promulgation of the Gospel.

2. Likewise, the reason why circumcision ceased was the fulfillment of the Law and of the legal observances; but all these were fulfilled in the passion, when it was said²: It is consummated, and the veil of the temple was rent: therefore if this took place before the promulgation of the Gospel, it ceased beforehand — and this is drawn from several places of the book of Questions on the New and Old Testament — as the Master says in the text.

3. Likewise, the special reason for the cessation of circumcision was the institution of a nobler Sacrament in its place; but baptism was instituted before the passion and the promulgation of the Gospel³: therefore circumcision ceased beforehand.

4. Likewise, to this there is the authority of Jerome to Augustine, which is set down in the Gloss on Galatians two⁴. Jerome says: « I pronounce that the ceremonies of the Jews are altogether deadly for the faithful; for the end of the Law is Christ unto justice » etc.

On the contrary: 1. After the passion Paul circumcised Timothy, Acts sixteen⁵, and in this he is not reprehended; and he kept the vow of the Nazarites, Acts twenty-one: therefore it was not yet evil, nor had circumcision ceased. If you should say that he did it to avoid scandal⁶; on the contrary: to avoid scandal one must not act against the truth of life or of doctrine: therefore if this was evil in itself, he is never excused on this ground from not having sinned.

2. Likewise, no one is bound to that which he does not know and cannot know⁷; but there were many to whom the institution of baptism had not come: therefore they were not bound to be baptized: therefore if God did not leave them without a remedy, circumcision still had its effect and standing after the passion.

3. Likewise, Augustine to Jerome⁸: Circumcision and the other legal observances were not harmful, although they were now no longer necessary for signifying things to come; it was more harmful to prohibit them as though harmful.

There is therefore here a question, since there seems here to be a manifold contradiction, as to what must be held. — For Peter seems contrary to himself, who in Acts fifteen⁹ declared that the legal observances were not to be kept, and afterward judaized, as is said in Galatians two.

Likewise, Paul seems contrary to himself, who reprehends Peter, and afterward circumcised Timothy and kept the vow of the Nazarites. Of the first it is had in Acts sixteen¹⁰, of the second in Acts twenty-one.

Likewise, Peter seems contrary to Paul, and conversely, because in Galatians two¹¹ it is said that Paul withstood Peter to his face: therefore there seems to have been a dissension in this between the columns of the Church.

Likewise, Jerome seems contrary to Augustine, as is plain in the Gloss on Galatians two¹²; and that they openly contradict, this appears in their Letters, in which they answer one another. Hence Jerome in the Letter to Augustine: « You say that to observe the legal precepts is good, I affirm it evil, not only for those who believed from among the Gentiles, but also for those who believed from the Jewish people ».

Conclusion. Before the promulgation of the Gospel the legal observances did not cease as regards observance, nor as regards efficacy universally, because among those at a distance they could probably still have efficacy.

I respond: For the understanding of the foregoing a twofold way must be opened, because the chief doctors, namely

p. 87

Jerome and Augustine, were apprehensive¹³ in determining this question.

And first, for understanding the solution of Jerome, it must be known that blessed Jerome understood two times in the giving of the new law and the institution of its Sacraments: one, namely, the time of establishing the Gospel, which began from the coming of Christ until the consummation of the passion; the other was the time of the promulgation of the Gospel, which began from the coming of the Holy Spirit until the end of the world. Likewise he understood that the legal and ceremonial precepts can be kept in two ways: either by precept as necessary for salvation, or by dispensation, not because they are good, but because good is drawn from them. — Jerome therefore granted that the legal observances, especially circumcision, ought to be kept until the truth of the Gospel should be promulgated and the institution of the new law opened up, and this throughout¹ the whole first time. But as these things began to be opened up, those ceased, just as these became known, so that it was lawful for no one, after having received knowledge of the truth, to keep Sacraments of this kind in any way, except only for those to whom the preaching of the Gospel had not come, or even for the greater Apostles themselves by dispensation and a certain pious pretense; but the rest were transgressors, in whatever way they kept them.

And to laying this down he was moved by the authority of sacred Scripture and the authority of the Church. The authority of sacred Scripture: for all the Apostles agreed, Acts fifteen², that the legal observances were not to be kept. Again, he saw that the Apostles in some places after that decree had kept them, and he said that the first decree had been given according to the rigor of the truth, but that the observance had been made according to a pretense of piety, according to which the Apostle says in First Corinthians nine³: I became all things to all, to the Jews as a Jew etc.; and this by a certain pious pretense. — The authority of the Church moved him, because the holy Fathers commonly condemned the heresy of Ebion and Cerinthus, who said that the legal observances were to be kept together with the Gospel; and on this account they said that they had been kept by a certain pious and dispensatory pretense on account of the weakness of the Jews. Thus Jerome said that Peter kept the legal observances by a certain pretense, according to what the Apostle says in Galatians two⁴, so that even Barnabas was led into this pretense. And he also said that Paul by a certain pious pretense reprehended Peter, who was not sinning; just as Peter condescended to the Jews in the observance of the legal precepts, so Paul to the Gentiles in the reprehension of that observance⁵. And thus neither did Peter sin in keeping them wrongly, nor Paul in reprehending shamelessly, as Porphyry the heretic charged against Paul, that he had shamelessly insulted the chief of the Apostles. — Behold, this is the position of Jerome and the ground of the position.

Augustine, however, resolves it in another way. For the understanding of his solution it must be noted that Augustine understood three times, namely the time of establishing the Gospel, of promulgating what was established, and of guarding what was already promulgated. The first time was from the coming of Christ until the consummation of the passion, and in this time the legal observances are weakened, and in the death of Christ dead. The second time was from the passion of Christ until the divulgation of the Gospel among all nations, when it could be said: Their sound went out into all the earth⁶ etc.; and in this time the legal observances are brought to the tomb. The third time was from that time until the end, in which the legal observances are as it were enclosed in the tomb.

Further it must be noted that for a threefold cause some things can be observed, namely on account of the necessity of salvation, on account of seemliness, on account of the weakness of a neighbor. — Augustine therefore said⁷ that in the first time the legal observances could be kept as living, on account of the usefulness of salvation. In the second time they could be kept even by those who had heard the Gospel, on account of seemliness, because the synagogue had to be brought to the tomb with honor, not cast off at once as an idolatress. And in this time too they could be kept on account of the usefulness of the neighbor, lest the Jews be called back from the faith. In the third time they are in no way to be kept, because he who now keeps them is not an honorer of the maternal little body, but a shameless uncoverer of the burial⁸.

And so he held that Peter and Paul both kept them not only to avoid the scandal of a neighbor, but also to render the honor due to the mother; and that they observed them not only by pretense, but also truly, not on account of the necessity of salvation, because they knew that these were not necessary for salvation. — Likewise he held that Peter was reprehended by Paul truly, not by pretense, not because he kept the legal observances, but because by his example he was compelling the Gentiles to judaize⁹. — But his ground

p. 88

was this: for if there was there only pretense in the observance, then to avoid the scandal of a neighbor it would be lawful to abandon the truth. And again; why would it not likewise be lawful now? which no one would say. Furthermore, concerning the reprehension of Paul, if he reprehended Peter only by pretense, then he spoke falsely and lied, Galatians two¹, both that he did not walk unto the truth of the Gospel, and that he was reprehensible. But who would dare to say that Paul lied dispensatorily in the doctrine of truth²? But if anyone should grant this, the way will lie open for heretics to say that other things were said by pretense.

And because Augustine himself, an excellent doctor, adds to the words of Jerome — nor is it any wonder, since it is not unfitting that those who come later should add to those who came before — therefore those who think better adhere to Augustine's manner of solving as the more sufficient. Hence Hugh of Saint Victor³ says that circumcision and the other legal observances ceased as regards efficacy after the passion, but as regards observance ceased after the promulgation of the Gospel. And besides Augustine's reason he assigns another reason, because neither nature nor reason endures sudden changes; and lest the new law should seem to have been given precipitately, it entered in with maturity, and the old things passed away.

From these things is plain the response to the first thing that is asked. For I concede, as the reasons show, that the legal observances did not cease as regards observance before the promulgation; nor even as regards efficacy universally, because it is believed, as Bernard says⁴, that they had efficacy in those who were at a distance and could not yet be restrained by precepts; but in those who could know, they had no efficacy.

1. To that, therefore, which is objected, that the Law and the Prophets were until John etc.; it must be said that this is understood inclusively, not because they then ceased at once, but because from then on legal observance began to be weakened.

2. To that which is objected concerning fulfillment, it must be said that the fulfillment was the cause of cessation; but this cause did not produce this effect unless it should become clear⁵; for the truth excludes the shadow only when it is made clear, because no one is bound to what is unknown.

3. To that which is objected concerning the institution of baptism, it must be said, as has been touched upon, that the institution was the cause of evacuation, but in act did not make it cease, unless first the usefulness and necessity of the Sacrament were plain. But this was not declared openly until after the passion. For the Lord says to Nicodemus⁶: Unless one be born again etc.; but he said this as a counsel in secret.

4. To that which is objected concerning Jerome, it must be said that Augustine added to the words of Jerome and saw this more clearly, and therefore his words are to be stood by. For Jerome himself⁷ entrusted it to him to add and to correct.

From these things the contradictions are plain. For Peter first declared that the legal observances were not to be observed, and therefore not to be imposed on the Gentiles. But nevertheless afterward he himself kept them, showing that, on account of the standing in which they once had been, they were to be honored. — The same is to be said of Paul.

Concerning the controversy of Peter and Paul it must be said that they thought entirely the same, and yet Peter was justly⁸ reprehended, because he was reprehensible, not because he did wrong, but somewhat incautiously; and that defect of circumspection I believe to have been in him some fault, though it was not mortal. And by divine dispensation this was permitted, so that, while Peter when reprehended did not resist, the truth might be plain more clearly; and⁹ that Peter might not wish to give an example to be imitated in his act. Hence he was reprehensible, that is, useful and worthy to be reprehended, because he did not walk unto the truth of the Gospel, that is, not in every respect, because by this the truth was being trampled; and therefore Paul did well and usefully, who reprehended him before all. Nor is Peter to be excused from one slight negligence, lest Paul be accused more gravely of the fault of lying. — To the last contrariety the response is plain from what has been said¹⁰.

---

Apparatus Criticus

1
Vers. 13. — De cessatione baptismi Ioannis cfr. supra d. 2. dub. 6.
Verse 13. — On the cessation of John's baptism cf. above, d. 2, dub. 6.
2
Ioan. 19, 30. — Seq. textus est Matth. 27, 51. — De locis, qui pro hac re ex Quaest. veteris et novi Testam. (inter opera August.) allegari possunt, vide supra pag. 85, nota 4. in fine. Sententia Magistri continetur hic in lit. c. 8.
John 19, 30. — The following text is Matthew 27, 51. — On the places which can be alleged for this matter from the Questions on the Old and New Testament (among the works of Augustine), see above, p. 85, note 4, at the end. The Master's view is contained here in the text, c. 8.
3
Vide supra a. I. q. I. in fine.
See above, art. I, q. I, at the end.
4
Vers. 14. Glossa, quae est ordinaria, exhibetur a Petro Lombard. et Lyrano. In textu originali apud Hieronymum Epist. 112. (alias 89.) n. 14. plura verba adiuncta habentur. Respicitur in ipsa Rom. 10, 4, ubi Vulgata omittit est.
Verse 14. The Gloss, which is the Ordinary one, is given by Peter Lombard and by Lyra. In the original text in Jerome, Letter 112 (otherwise 89), n. 14, several added words are found. There is reference in it to Rom. 10, 4, where the Vulgate omits est.
5
Vers. 3. — Seq. locus est Act. 21, 23. seqq. — Inferius post malum cod. Z addit circumcidi.
Verse 3. — The following passage is Acts 21, 23 ff. — Below, after malum codex Z adds circumcidi.
6
Ut dicit Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum ex August., Epist. 82. (alias 19.) c. 2. n. 8. seqq., et I. Quaest. veteris et novi Testam. (inter opera August.) q. 60. — C. qui scandalizaverit, X. (v. tit. 41. c. 3.) de Regulis iuris. Propter scandalum evitandum veritas non est omittenda (secundum Bedam, in Marc. 9, 41.).
As the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo says, from Augustine, Letter 82 (otherwise 19), c. 2, n. 8 ff., and I, Questions on the Old and New Testament (among the works of Augustine), q. 60. — The chapter Qui scandalizaverit, X. (see tit. 41, c. 3) on the Rules of Law. To avoid scandal the truth is not to be omitted (according to Bede, on Mark 9, 41).
7
Regula iuris 13. in VI: Ignorantia facti, non iuris, excusat. Cfr. Hugo a S. Vict., II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 5.
Rule of Law 13 in the Sixth [Book]: Ignorance of fact, not of law, excuses. Cf. Hugh of St. Victor, On the Sacraments, II, p. VI, c. 5.
8
Epist. 82. (alias 19.) n. 15. Sententia, non verba Augustini afferuntur.
Letter 82 (otherwise 19), n. 15. The sense, not the words, of Augustine is given.
9
Vers. 10. — Seq. locus est Gal. 2, 11. seqq.
Verse 10. — The following passage is Gal. 2, 11 ff.
10
Vers. 3. — Alter locus est Act. 21, 23. seqq.
Verse 3. — The other passage is Acts 21, 23 ff.
11
Vers. 11.
Verse 11.
12
Vers. 11. apud Petr. Lombard. et Lyranum. — Verba Hieronymi habentur in iam allegata Epist. 112. (alias 89.) n. 16, ubi textus originalis post malum addit et malum, ac subinde cum cod. K pro gentili substituit gentibus.
Verse 11, in Peter Lombard and Lyra. — Jerome's words are found in the already-alleged Letter 112 (otherwise 89), n. 16, where the original text after malum adds et malum, and thereupon, with codex K, substitutes gentibus for gentili. ### Page 87
13
Vat. et aliquot codd., substituto quam pro quia, hic ponunt tenuerunt.
The Vatican edition and several codices, substituting quam for quia, here put tenuerunt.
1
Cod. U et hoc est toto. Inferius pro acceptam cod. F adeptam.
Codex U reads et hoc est toto. Below, for acceptam codex F reads adeptam.
2
Vers. 23. seqq.
Verse 23 ff.
3
Vers. 22. et 20. (Cfr. Epist. praeallegata Hieronym. n. 12. et 17.).
Verses 22 and 20. (Cf. the previously-alleged Letter of Jerome, n. 12 and 17.)
4
Vers. 13. (Vide in praenotata Epist. n. 13. et 15. seqq.).
Verse 13. (See in the aforenoted Letter, n. 13 and 15 ff.)
5
Ita codd. H Q (I a secunda manu), cod. P a secunda manu gentilibus condescenderet, Vat. gentibus, in aliis deest dativus. — Impudentia Porphyrii reprehenditur in dicta Epist. n. 11.
Thus codices H Q (I by a second hand), codex P by a second hand gentilibus condescenderet, the Vatican edition gentibus, in others the dative is lacking. — The impudence of Porphyry is reprehended in the said Letter, n. 11.
6
Psalm. 18, 5. — Cfr. August., Epist. 82. (alias 19.) n. 16. — Pro divulgationem codd. F G I promulgationem. Inferius pro usque ad finem Vat. usque ad mundi finem.
Psalm 18, 5. — Cf. Augustine, Letter 82 (otherwise 19), n. 16. — For divulgationem codices F G I read promulgationem. Below, for usque ad finem the Vatican edition reads usque ad mundi finem.
7
Loc. cit. — Inferius voci utilitatem Vat. praemittit necessitatem vel. Aliquanto post pro adducenda cod. F deducenda, et pro proximi utilitatem cod. U proximi infirmitatem.
Loc. cit. — Below, to the word utilitatem the Vatican edition prefixes necessitatem vel. Somewhat after, for adducenda codex F reads deducenda, and for proximi utilitatem codex U reads proximi infirmitatem.
8
August. loc. cit.: Non erit pius deductor vel baiulus corporis, sed impius sepulturae notator.
Augustine, loc. cit.: He will not be a pious leader or bearer of the body, but an impious marker of the burial.
9
Loc. cit. n. 15. Cfr. lib. contra Mendacium ad Consent. c. 12. n. 26.
Loc. cit. n. 15. Cf. the book Against Lying, to Consentius, c. 12, n. 26. ### Page 88
1
Vers. 14. et 11.
Verses 14 and 11.
2
Ita codd. F L (bb a secunda manu, cod. I autem dispensatione), quae lectio confirmatur a pluribus codd., qui habent doctrina, dum in aliis et edd. legitur doctrinae veritatis dispensatione. — De re cfr. August., loc. cit. n. 21. seq., ubi, praenotato, quod dispensative mentiri, si quid significet, idem sit ac officiose mentiri, et quod de permissione officiosi mendacii magna sit quaestio; docet, inconcusse tamen tenendum esse, auctores s. Scripturae in scribendo mendacium non commisisse, « ne dispensatores Christi, de quibus dictum est (I. Cor. 4, 2.) Hic iam quaeritur inter dispensatores, ut fidelis quis inveniatur, tanquam magnum aliquid sibi fideliter didicisse videantur, pro veritatis dispensatione mentiri, cum ipsa fides in latino sermone ab eo dicatur appellata, quia fit quod dicitur; ubi autem fit quod dicitur, mentiendi utique non est locus » etc. — De seq. proposit. vide ibid. n. 5. seq. Mox pro det codd. F H (Ia secunda manu) dicat, edd. diceret.
Thus codices F L (bb by a second hand, but codex I dispensatione), which reading is confirmed by several codices that have doctrina, while in others and in the editions is read doctrinae veritatis dispensatione. — On the matter cf. Augustine, loc. cit. n. 21 f., where, having premised that to lie dispensatorily, if it signifies anything, is the same as to lie officiously, and that concerning the permission of an officious lie there is a great question; he teaches, however, that it must be held unshakably that the authors of sacred Scripture committed no lie in writing, « lest the dispensers of Christ, of whom it is said (I Cor. 4, 2) Here now it is sought among the dispensers, that a man be found faithful, should seem, as though to have faithfully learned something great for themselves, to lie for the dispensation of the truth, since faith itself in the Latin tongue is so called by him because what is said is done; but where what is said is done, there is surely no place for lying » etc. — On the following proposition see ibid. n. 5 f. Soon, for det codices F H (I by a second hand) read dicat, the editions diceret.
3
Libr. II. de Sacram. p. VI. c. 4, ubi etiam alia ratio paulo inferius inducta habetur, de qua cfr. etiam August., loc. cit. n. 18: Sensim proinde atque paulatim etc.
On the Sacraments, Book II, p. VI, c. 4, where also another reason introduced a little below is found, on which cf. also Augustine, loc. cit. n. 18: Therefore gradually and by little and little etc.
4
De Baptismo, c. 1. n. 3. et c. 2. n. 6. — Codd. F H Gregorius.
On Baptism, c. 1, n. 3, and c. 2, n. 6. — Codices F H read Gregorius.
5
Glossa ordinaria (ex Rabano) super Iudith 8, 2: Veniente Christo et luce Evangelii clarescente in mundo, omnis illa observantia [legalium] cessit. — Ex codd. F G H I Y voci effectum praefiximus hunc.
The Ordinary Gloss (from Rabanus) on Judith 8, 2: With Christ coming and the light of the Gospel growing clear in the world, all that observance [of the legal precepts] ceased. — From codices F G H I Y we have prefixed hunc to the word effectum.
6
Ioan. 3, 5. Cfr. infra dub. I, et Bernard., de Baptismo, c. 1. n. 5.
John 3, 5. Cf. below, dub. I, and Bernard, On Baptism, c. 1, n. 5.
7
Cfr. eius Epist. 112. (alias 89.) n. 2.
Cf. his Letter 112 (otherwise 89), n. 2.
8
Edd. male Petrus iste. Mox post sed codd. S T U repetunt quia.
The editions wrongly read Petrus iste. Soon after sed codices S T U repeat quia.
9
Plurimi codd. et ed. A omittunt et, codd. M O substituunt quia pro et quod. Cod. O paulo superius post ut omittit dum (quod etiam plures alii codd. omittunt), subinde post non resisteret, pro quo edd. desisteret, addit et. Aliquanto inferius pro non ambulabat cod. I non recte ambulabat. Idem cod. I cum pluribus aliis et ed. A subinde pro id est substituit et.
Most codices and edition A omit et, codices M O substitute quia for et quod. Codex O a little above, after ut, omits dum (which also several other codices omit), then after non resisteret, for which the editions read desisteret, adds et. Somewhat below, for non ambulabat codex I reads non recte ambulabat. The same codex I, with several others and edition A, then substitutes et for id est.
10
Vide scholion ad praecedentem quaest.
See the scholion on the preceding question.