Dist. 33, Dubia
Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 33
Dub. I.
In parte ista sunt dubitationes circa litteram, et primo quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Maledicta erat sterilis, quae non relinquebat etc. Aut enim hoc intelligitur quantum ad maledictionem poenae, aut culpae. Si quantum ad maledictionem poenae, adhuc verum est illud, quod sterilitas non dicit naturam, sed defectum et malum, et non culpae, ergo poenae. Si maledictionem culpae: ergo esse sterilem erat culpa; quod manifeste falsum est.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod istud intelligitur de maledictione poenae, prout poena non tantum dicit defectum naturae, immo etiam amplius, scilicet opprobrium infamiae; tunc enim erat infamis et vilis reputabatur et ignominiosa, quasi Dominus vulvam eius conclusisset — exemplum est de Anna primi Regum primo3 — unde steriles mulieres, quando non fecundabantur, reputabant, sibi esse ignominiam. Quia ergo tunc omnes viris copulabantur et prolem quaerebant, et si non habebant, ignominiosae erant; ideo omnes steriles maledictae erant, quia fructum ventris non habebant, quem illud tempus requirebat. — Nunc autem quaeritur fructus bonorum operum4; ideo, etsi mulier careat filiis per virginitatem, ubi est sterilitas voluntaria, non maledicitur, sed laudatur; si vero careat propter defectum naturalem, non maledicitur, sed sustinetur, maxime si non est in ea sterilitas bonorum operum.
Dub. II.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Ambrosius de filiabus Loth, quod publici muneris gratia privatam culpam praetexit. Videtur enim falsum dicere, quia, si quis furetur, ut det pauperibus, non excusatur a peccato furti: ergo nec illae ab incestu, cum a patre cognitae fuerint. — Item videtur, quod multipliciter peccaverunt: primo, quia patrem inebriaverunt; secundo, quia ambae cum eodem viro; tertio, quia cum patre suo peccaverunt.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod quamvis filiae Loth videantur ex pietate motae fuisse, quia non propter delectationem carnis, sed propter conservationem humani generis artem illam cogitaverunt; tamen non excusantur ab incestu: quia scienter contra primam institutionem matrimonii, in qua excipiuntur pater et mater5, iacuerunt cum patre; secundo vero, quia super falsam existimationem voluntatem suam fundaverunt; et ideo, etsi ignorantia et naturalis pietas aliquo modo excuset culpam, non tamen a toto, sed a tanto; nec adeo excusat, quin mortaliter peccaverint, licet de patre praesumi possit, quod non peccaverit mortaliter. Et hoc vult Ambrosius dicere, quod intentio illa, qua bonum commune, non voluptatem propriam intendebant, «praetexit privatam culpam». Fuit enim culpa re vera, sed tamen quandam excusationis speciem habuit ex illa intentione, quae videbatur esse pia. Plus tamen habuit de stultitia et de temeritate quam de pietate: primo, quia patrem sanctum6 debebant consulere; secundo vero, quia, etsi verum esset, quod totum genus humanum esset consumtum, non tamen debuissent attentare tam horridum factum, nisi interveniret divinum mandatum. — Sed in hoc manifestatum est, quod in nulla muliere confidendum est, quia deceperunt eum cuius castitas gloriosa praedicatur, dum inter tam impios tam sancte et laudabiliter vixit7.
Dub. III.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod continentiam Ioannes in opere, Abraham in solo habebat habitu. Videtur enim male dicere: quia aut loquitur de continentia virginali, aut simpliciter. Si de continentia simpliciter; tunc falsum dicit, quia Abraham veram continentiam habebat in usu. Si de virginali; cum illa sit p. 763«incorruptionis perpetuae meditatio»1, illam non habebat, nec habitu nec actu. — Et iterum, si «plura bona paucioribus meliora sunt», videtur, quod perfectiori modo fuerit continens.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod continentia uno modo dicit privationem universalem illius actus; et sic vocat Augustinus2 castitatem caelibum. Alio modo dicit privationem immoderantiae vel intemperantiae respectu illius actus; hoc modo ponit actum cum modestia, et hanc vocat castitatem nuptiarum. Per primam vult homo nullo modo coire, per secundam vero vult, quando et quomodo et cum qua debet coire. Prima est nobilior quam secunda. Utramque harum simul habere in usu est impossibile, sed alteram habere in usu, alteram in habitu, nullum est inconveniens. Et sic fuit in Abraham, quia continentiam nuptiarum habuit in usu, sed alteram in habitu, quia facillimum fuisset ei tanquam viro temperantissimo universaliter a muliere abstinere; et hanc voluntatem habebat, quantum erat in se. — Et sic patet, quomodo habuit utramque; patet etiam, quomodo continentiam habuit in habitu, non in opere quantum ad omnimodam abstinentiam; patet etiam, quod non est melius habere ambas quam alteram, quia castitas caelibatus continet in se quidquid perfectionis habet altera3.
Dub. IV.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Hieronymus: Omnes retro Sanctos eiusdem fuisse meriti, cuius nunc Christiani sunt. Videtur enim male dicere: quia, si eiusdem meriti fuerunt, ergo status Legis aequiparatur statui Evangelii. Quomodo igitur verum est, quod post adventum Salvatoris effusa sit plene gratia Spiritus sancti4?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod relativum identitatis5 et adverbium similitudinis in praesenti auctoritate non dicunt aequalitatem, sed magis proportionem, ut ita intelligatur: quia, sicut competit legi Evangelii continere, ita nubere tunc. Tamen hoc excedit illud absolute, et tempus excedit tempus, et status statum, sicut si fiat comparatio pueri ad puerum, et viri ad virum sive ad statum viri; sic in proposito est intelligendum. Unde Sancti non intendunt astruere6 aequalitatem, sed ostendere, statum illum esse bonum, quamvis nobis non competat imitari.
Dub. V.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit, quod Scriptura nunc eas uxores appellat, nunc concubinas; quid secundum veritatem fuerint; cum enim non possint simul esse uxores et concubinae, videtur Scriptura falsum dicere.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod re vera concubinae fuerunt, sicut innuit textus Genesis7 de Agar, de qua primo dicitur, quod Sara dedit eam viro suo in uxorem; et post dicitur: Eiice ancillam et filium eius. Et Augustinus expresse dicit de Civitate Dei decimo sexto, vigesimo quinto et vigesimo octavo capitulo, ubi dicit, quod «obedivit uxori, reddendo ei debitum». Similiter intelligitur de illis duabus ancillis uxorum Iacob8, quarum quaelibet data fuit a domina viro, et vir in eis reddebat debitum uxoribus. Quoniam ergo in matrimonium non erant coniunctae, ideo secundum veritatem non erant uxores, sed concubinae. Sed quoniam uxorio affectu cognoscebat, et semen computabatur uxoribus, et ita legitimum; hinc est, quod uxores dicuntur.
Aliqui inde volunt dicere, quod verae uxores fuerunt, tamen dicuntur concubinae propter hoc, quod erant ancillae uxorum, et non nascebatur eis semen, sed liberis. — Sed si attendatur figura, quae ibi importabatur, quam notat Augustinus in libro de Baptismo9, et verba eius de Civitate Dei decimo sexto; prima positio est verior.
Si vero quaeratur, quae fuerit uxor verior inter Rachelem et Liam; dicendum, quod utraque fuit, quia servivit in uxorem et in uxorem servavit, sicut dicitur in Osee10; sed tamen secundum affectum Iacob Rachel verior, et magis habebat dominium sive posse ad Iacob; sed secundum divinam dispositionem Lia, de cuius semine ortus est Christus Dominus11, propter quem tota generatio Iacob, immo omnis generatio benedicta est.
Dub. VI.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Non quaeritur electio muneris in successione generis. Videtur enim hoc esse falsum: cum enim multi matrimonialiter copulentur, et non ob aliud quam propter prolem principaliter: ergo videtur, quod hoc quaeratur. — Item, nonne coniuges prolem desiderant et a Deo quaerunt? Constat, quod immo. — Item, quis modus est iste loquendi: non quaeritur electio muneris? Quod est illud munus?
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod omnia bona, quaecumque habemus, dona Dei sunt et munera Dei1. Intelligendum est igitur, quod huiusmodi dona et munera quaerunt homines, cum ea desiderant et cum orant Deum pro eis acquirendis et laborant, ut ea habeant. Possunt igitur haec munera dupliciter inquiri: vel secundum affectum humanum, et sic adhuc quaeritur et desideratur et eligitur munus successionis et prolis; vel secundum promissum evangelicum. Et quoniam lex evangelica promittit perfectionem in praesenti et gloriam in futuro et dona spiritualia et non carnalia; hinc est, quod bene dicitur: non quaeritur electio muneris etc., supple: secundum intentionem Evangelii.
Dub. VII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit Isidorus: Non potest corpus corrumpi, nisi prius corrumpatur animus. Videtur enim illud manifeste falsum, quia multis virginibus a viris pessimis facta est iniuria, et corruptae sunt violenter. Si tu intelligas de corruptione peccati, sicut dicit Magister2; contra: omne peccatum est in libero arbitrio: ergo non est in carne vel in corpore.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod istud intelligitur de corruptione, quae redundat in amissionem decoris virginitatis; cum enim sit de magnis bonis3, nullo modo potest perimi vel auferri omnino nolenti. Sed ipse opponit de qualicumque corruptione.
Dub. VIII.
Item quaeritur de hoc quod dicit: Sanctius est mori fame quam idolothytis vesci. Videtur enim male dicere, quia idolum nihil est in mundo4. Et iterum: Nihil est reiiciendum, sicut dicitur primae ad Timotheum quarto. Et similiter dicitur primae ad Corinthios decimo, quod de omnibus licet vesci.
Respondeo: Dicendum, quod illud intelligendum est de illo qui vescitur idolothytis in reverentiam idoli, vel quando scit, alios propter ignorantiam scandalizari. Verumtamen propter scandalum in articulo necessitatis non est idolothytum dimittendum, sed cum protestatione, quod non facit in reverentiam idoli, est sumendum; et tunc non scandalizat5.
---
Dub. I.
In this part there are doubts concerning the text, and first it is asked about this which he says: Cursed was she that was barren, who did not leave etc. For either this is understood with respect to the curse of punishment, or of fault. If with respect to the curse of punishment, that is still true which [holds] that barrenness does not denote nature, but a defect and an evil, and not [a defect] of fault, therefore of punishment. If [with respect to] the curse of fault: then to be barren was a fault; which is manifestly false.
I respond: It must be said that this is understood of the curse of punishment, inasmuch as the punishment denotes not only a defect of nature, but even something more, namely the reproach of infamy; for then she was infamous and was reputed vile and ignominious, as though the Lord had closed up her womb — the example is that of Anna in the first [book] of Kings, chapter one3 — whence barren women, when they were not made fruitful, reckoned it an ignominy for themselves. Since therefore at that time all were joined to husbands and sought offspring, and if they did not have [it] they were held in ignominy; therefore all the barren were cursed, because they did not have the fruit of the womb, which that time required. — But now the fruit of good works is sought4; therefore, even if a woman lacks children through virginity, where the barrenness is voluntary, she is not cursed, but praised; but if she lacks [them] on account of a natural defect, she is not cursed, but is borne with, especially if there is not in her a barrenness of good works.
Dub. II.
Likewise it is asked about this which Ambrose says concerning the daughters of Lot, that for the sake of a public duty she cloaked a private fault. For it seems he speaks falsely, because, if someone steals in order to give to the poor, he is not excused from the sin of theft: therefore neither are they [excused] from incest, since they were known by their father. — Likewise it seems that they sinned in many ways: first, because they made their father drunk; second, because both [were] with the same man; third, because they sinned with their own father.
I respond: It must be said that although the daughters of Lot may seem to have been moved out of piety, because they devised that scheme not for the delight of the flesh, but for the preservation of the human race; nevertheless they are not excused from incest: because knowingly, against the first institution of matrimony, in which father and mother are excepted5, they lay with their father; and secondly, because they founded their will upon a false estimation; and therefore, even if ignorance and natural piety in some way excuse the fault, yet not from the whole, but from so much [of it]; nor does it excuse so far but that they sinned mortally, although concerning the father it may be presumed that he did not sin mortally. And this is what Ambrose means to say, that that intention, by which they intended the common good, not their own pleasure, «cloaks the private fault». For it was in truth a fault, but nevertheless it had a certain appearance of excuse from that intention, which seemed to be pious. Yet it had more of folly and of rashness than of piety: first, because they ought to have consulted their holy father6; and secondly, because, even if it were true that the whole human race had been consumed, they nevertheless ought not to have attempted so horrid a deed, unless a divine command had intervened. — But in this it was made manifest, that no woman is to be trusted, because they deceived him whose chastity is gloriously proclaimed, while among such impious ones he lived so holily and laudably7.
Dub. III.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that John had continence in act, Abraham [had it] in habit alone. For it seems he speaks ill: because either he speaks of virginal continence, or simply. If of continence simply; then he speaks falsely, because Abraham had true continence in use. If of virginal [continence]; since that is «the meditation of perpetual incorruption»1, he did not have it, neither in habit nor in act. — And again, if «more goods are better than fewer», it seems that he would have been continent in a more perfect way.
I respond: It must be said that continence in one way denotes the universal privation of that act; and thus Augustine calls it the chastity of celibates2. In another way it denotes the privation of immoderation or of intemperance with respect to that act; in this way it posits the act with moderation, and this he calls the chastity of the married. By the first a man wills in no way to have intercourse, but by the second he wills [it] when and how and with whom he ought to have intercourse. The first is nobler than the second. To have both of these at once in use is impossible, but to have one in use, the other in habit, is nothing unfitting. And so it was in Abraham, because he had the continence of the married in use, but the other in habit, because it would have been most easy for him, as a most temperate man, universally to abstain from woman; and he had this will, as far as was in himself. — And thus it is clear how he had both; it is clear also how he had continence in habit, not in act as regards total abstinence; it is clear also that it is not better to have both than the other, because the chastity of celibacy contains in itself whatever of perfection the other has3.
Dub. IV.
Likewise it is asked about this which Jerome says: That all the Saints of former times were of the same merit, of which Christians now are. For it seems he speaks ill: because, if they were of the same merit, then the state of the Law is made equal to the state of the Gospel. How therefore is it true, that after the coming of the Savior the grace of the Holy Spirit was fully poured out4?
I respond: It must be said that the relative of identity5 and the adverb of similitude in the present authority do not denote equality, but rather proportion, so that it be understood thus: that, just as it befits the law of the Gospel to be continent, so [it befitted] to marry then. Yet this exceeds that absolutely, and the time exceeds the time, and the state the state, just as if a comparison be made of a boy to a boy, and of a man to a man or to the state of a man; so in the matter proposed it is to be understood. Whence the Saints do not intend to establish6 equality, but to show that that state was good, although it does not befit us to imitate [it].
Dub. V.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says, that Scripture now calls them wives, now concubines; [and] what they were according to the truth; for since they cannot at the same time be wives and concubines, Scripture seems to speak falsely.
I respond: It must be said that in very truth they were concubines, as the text of Genesis intimates concerning Hagar7, of whom first it is said that Sarah gave her to her husband as a wife; and afterward it is said: Cast out the handmaid and her son. And Augustine expressly says, in the City of God, book sixteen, chapters twenty-five and twenty-eight, where he says that «he obeyed his wife, rendering to her the debt». Likewise it is understood of those two handmaids, the wives of Jacob8, each of whom was given by her mistress to the man, and the man rendered to them the debt as to wives. Since therefore they were not joined in matrimony, therefore according to truth they were not wives, but concubines. But since he knew [them] with marital affection, and the seed was reckoned to the wives, and thus legitimate; hence it is that they are called wives.
Some from this wish to say that they were true wives, yet are called concubines for this reason, that they were the handmaids of the wives, and the seed was not born to them, but to the free women. — But if the figure which was there imported be attended to, which Augustine notes in the book on Baptism9, and his words in the City of God, book sixteen; the first position is truer.
But if it be asked which was the truer wife between Rachel and Leah; it must be said that both were [wives], because he served for a wife and kept [her] for a wife, as it is said in Hosea10; but nevertheless according to the affection of Jacob, Rachel [was] truer, and had more dominion or power over Jacob; but according to the divine disposition, Leah, from whose seed Christ the Lord arose11, on account of whom the whole generation of Jacob, nay, every generation is blessed.
Dub. VI.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says: The choice of a gift is not sought in the succession of offspring. For this seems to be false: for since many are joined in matrimony, and for no other reason than principally on account of offspring: therefore it seems that this is sought. — Likewise, do not spouses desire offspring and seek [it] from God? It is agreed that indeed [they do]. — Likewise, what manner of speaking is this: the choice of a gift is not sought? What is that gift?
I respond: It must be said that all goods, whatsoever we have, are gifts of God and bounties of God1. It is therefore to be understood that men seek gifts and bounties of this kind, when they desire them and when they pray to God for acquiring them and labor, that they may have them. These bounties therefore can be sought in two ways: either according to human affection, and thus the gift of succession and of offspring is still sought and desired and chosen; or according to the evangelical promise. And since the evangelical law promises perfection in the present and glory in the future and spiritual gifts and not carnal [ones]; hence it is that it is well said: the choice of a gift is not sought etc., supply: according to the intention of the Gospel.
Dub. VII.
Likewise it is asked about this which Isidore says: The body cannot be corrupted, unless first the mind be corrupted. For it seems that [this is] manifestly false, because to many virgins injury has been done by most wicked men, and they have been violently corrupted. If you understand [it] of the corruption of sin, as the Master says2; on the contrary: every sin is in the free will: therefore it is not in the flesh or in the body.
I respond: It must be said that this is understood of the corruption which redounds to the loss of the beauty of virginity; since it is among the great goods3, it can in no way be destroyed or taken away from one wholly unwilling. But he himself objects concerning any corruption whatever.
Dub. VIII.
Likewise it is asked about this which he says: It is holier to die of hunger than to eat things sacrificed to idols. For it seems he speaks ill, because an idol is nothing in the world4. And again: Nothing is to be rejected, as it is said in the first [letter] to Timothy, chapter four. And likewise it is said in the first [letter] to the Corinthians, chapter ten, that it is lawful to eat of all things.
I respond: It must be said that that is to be understood of him who eats things sacrificed to idols in reverence of the idol, or when he knows that others are scandalized on account of ignorance. Nevertheless, on account of scandal, in the article of necessity the thing sacrificed to idols is not to be given up, but with a protestation that he does not do it in reverence of the idol, it is to be taken; and then he does not scandalize5.
---
- 3Vers. 5. — Ibid. v. 6. invenitur textus praecedens.Verse 5. — In the same [place], v. 6, the preceding text is found. (1 Kings [1 Samuel] 1, 5–6.)
- 4Col. 1, 10: Ut ambuletis digne Deo per omnia placentes, in omni opere bono fructificantes etc. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Colossians 1, 10: That you may walk worthily of God, pleasing in all things, being fruitful in every good work, etc. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.
- 5Vide supra pag. 664, nota 3.See above, page 664, note 3.
- 6Codd. E L Y addunt virum.The codices E, L, Y add virum ("a man").
- 7Cfr. Hieron., Liber hebraic. Quaest. in Gen. 19, 30; August., XXII. contra Faustum, c. 41. seqq., et Glossam ordinariam apud Strabum et Lyranum in Gen. 19, 31. — Idem dub. solvitur a B. Alberto, hic a. 8; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. Jerome, Book of Hebrew Questions on Genesis 19, 30; Augustine, Against Faustus XXII, c. 41 ff., and the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra on Genesis 19, 31. — The same doubt is resolved by Blessed Albert, here art. 8; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.
- 1Ut dicit August. supra pag. 753, nota 2. allegatus. — Seq. axioma est Aristot., III. Topic. c. 2.As Augustine says, cited above on page 753, note 2. — The following axiom is Aristotle's, Topics III, c. 2.
- 2Hic in lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Infra pro cum modestia cod. H cum moderantia.Here in the text of the Master, c. 2. — Below, for cum modestia ("with moderation") codex H [reads] cum moderantia.
- 3Cfr. supra a. 2. q. 2; S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Cf. above, art. 2, q. 2; St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.
- 4Vide Ioan. 7, 39. et Act. 2, 1. seqq.See John 7, 39, and Acts 2, 1 ff.
- 5Scilicet cuius et eiusdem; cfr. supra pag. 252, nota 5.Namely cuius ("of which") and eiusdem ("of the same"); cf. above, page 252, note 5.
- 6Codd. A M (L a secunda manu) ostendere, codd. O R asserere. — Vide de hoc dubio supra a. 2. q. 2; Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.The codices A, M (L by a second hand) [read] ostendere ("to show"), the codices O, R asserere ("to affirm"). — See on this doubt above, art. 2, q. 2; Peter of Tarentaise and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.
- 7Cap. 16, 3. Vulgata uxorem pro in uxorem. — Seq. locus ibid. 21, 10, ubi Vulgata post ancillam addit hanc. Cfr. Gal. 4, 30. — In allegatione August., de Civ. Dei, codd. inter se non conveniunt; plures allegant sic: XV. et XXV. cap. (re vera in lib. XV. c. 3. haec res tangitur); alii sic: XVI. et XXVIII. cap.; confundunt ergo librum cum cap. Cfr. ibid. c. 34.[Genesis] chapter 16, 3. The Vulgate [reads] uxorem for in uxorem. — The following passage is in the same [book], 21, 10, where the Vulgate after ancillam adds hanc. Cf. Galatians 4, 30. — In the citation of Augustine, On the City of God, the codices do not agree among themselves; many cite thus: chapters XV and XXV (though in truth this matter is touched in book XV, c. 3); others thus: chapters XVI and XXVIII; they therefore confound book with chapter. Cf. the same, c. 34.
- 8Gen. 30, 3. seqq.Genesis 30, 3 ff.
- 9Libr. I. c. 10. n. 14; c. 15. n. 23. et c. 16. n. 25. Cfr. supra d. 5. a. 2. q. 2. in corp., ubi figura insinuatur. — De XVI. de Civ. Dei vide notam penultimam. — Superius pro Aliqui inde codd. A F G I K Y Aliqui tamen.Book I, c. 10, n. 14; c. 15, n. 23, and c. 16, n. 25. Cf. above, d. 5, a. 2, q. 2, in the body [of the article], where the figure is hinted at. — Concerning book XVI of the City of God, see the penultimate note. — Above, for Aliqui inde ("Some from this") the codices A, F, G, I, K, Y [read] Aliqui tamen ("Some, however").
- 10Cap. 12, 12: Servivit Israel in uxorem etc. Pro servavit codd. et edd. perperam servivit (Septuaginta custodivit). — Superius pro fuit, quod nonnulli codd. omittunt, cod. U vera.[Hosea] chapter 12, 12: Israel served for a wife, etc. For servavit ("kept") the codices and editions wrongly [read] servivit ("served") (the Septuagint custodivit, "guarded"). — Above, for fuit ("was"), which several codices omit, codex U [reads] vera ("truly").
- 11Matth. 1, 2. in genealogia Christi recensetur Iudas, qui erat filius Liae (Gen. 29, 35.). — De hoc dubio vide supra a. 1. q. 3. in corp.; B. Albert., hic a. 21; S. Thom., et Petr. a Tar., hic circa lit.Matthew 1, 2. In the genealogy of Christ, Judah is reckoned, who was the son of Leah (Genesis 29, 35). — On this doubt see above, a. 1, q. 3, in the body [of the article]; Blessed Albert, here art. 21; St. Thomas and Peter of Tarentaise, here in commenting on the text.
- 1Cfr. Iac. 1, 17.Cf. James 1, 17.
- 2Hic c. 4.Here, c. 4.
- 3Respicitur distinctio bonorum ab August. facta et li. Sent. lit. Magistri, d. XXVII. c. 3, allegata: Virtutes... magna bona sunt etc. — Cfr. de hoc dubio S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit.Reference is made to the distinction of goods drawn by Augustine and cited in the Sentences, in the text of the Master, d. XXVII, c. 3: The virtues... are great goods, etc. — Cf. on this doubt St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text.
- 4Epist. I. Cor. 8, 4. — Secundus locus est I. Tim. 4, 4; tertius I. Cor. 10, 25: Omne quod in macello vaenit, manducate etc. Cfr. ibid. v. 27. — Superius de verbis Sanctius est vide pag. 746, nota 4.[First] Epistle to the Corinthians 8, 4. — The second passage is I Timothy 4, 4; the third, I Corinthians 10, 25: Whatever is sold in the shambles, eat, etc. Cf. the same, v. 27. — Above, concerning the words Sanctius est ("It is holier"), see page 746, note 4.
- 5Cfr. Glossa ordinaria apud Strabum et Lyranum in I. Cor. 10, 25. seqq., quae est ex Comment. olim Ambrosio tributo. — Idem dub. solvunt S. Thom., Petr. a Tar. et Richard. a Med., hic circa lit. Magistri.Cf. the Ordinary Gloss in Strabo and Lyra on I Corinthians 10, 25 ff., which is from the Commentary formerly attributed to Ambrose. — The same doubt is resolved by St. Thomas, Peter of Tarentaise, and Richard of Middleton, here in commenting on the text of the Master. ---