← Back to Distinction 8

Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 3

Book IV: On the Sacraments · Distinction 8

Textus Latinus
p. 183

Quaestio III. De figurarum praeeminentia.

Tertio quaeritur circa hoc de figurarum praeeminentia, et quaeritur, quae figura sit expressior, utrum illa quae fuit tempore legis naturae, an illa quae fuit tempore legis Moysaicae, an illa quae fuit tempore legis gratiae. Et quod illa quae fuit tempore legis naturae, videtur:

1. Auctoritate Ambrosii de Sacramentis1: « Apparet, anteriora fuisse Sacramenta Christianorum quam Iudaeorum »; sed hoc non dicitur nisi ratione legis naturae: ergo aliquo modo magis fuerunt Sacramenta Christianorum in illo tempore: sed non quantum ad veritatem vel efficaciam: ergo quantum ad expressionem figurae.

2. Item, lex naturae magis convenit cum lege gratiae sive Evangelii quam lex Moysi, quia ius evangelicum plus habet de naturali dictamine quam de institutione, econtra est in lege Moysi2: ergo et Sacramenta expressius figurant, ut videtur.

3. Item, hoc ipsum videtur ratione: quia Melchisedech obtulit sacrificium in pane et vino3, et in eisdem speciebus modo offertur et celebratur Sacramentum altaris: ergo cum non possit expressius figurari quam in simili secundum speciem; videtur, quod tunc praecessit figura expressissima.

Ad oppositum 1. arguit Hugo de sancto Victore4: Sicut appropinquavit passio Salvatoris, ita signa debuerunt esse evidentiora; et ratio eius est, quia crevit cognitio veritatis: ergo cum tempore legis scriptae creverit cognitio veritatis, et appropinquaverit passio Salvatoris; videtur, quod figurae fuerunt expressiores.

2. Item, hoc videtur ad litteram in manna: quia cibus ille erat de caelo aequaliter omnes reficiens et omnibus communis et omnem suavitatem habens5; sed panis et vinum ipsius Melchisedech de terra erat, et hoc Sacramentum est panis de caelo descendens: ergo videtur, quod figura mannae fuerit expressior.

Conclusio.

Figurae illae diversarum legum in expressione mutuo se excedunt.

Respondeo: Dicendum, quod figurae illarum legum secundum diversas considerationes mutuo se excedunt in expressione, sicut ostendunt rationes inductae. — Potest enim Sacramentum hoc praefigurari quantum ad ritum, vel quantum ad effectum, sive quantum ad signum, vel quantum ad signatum. Si quantum ad ritum, sic expressior figura praecessit in sacrificio Melchisedech, sicut probant rationes inductae; et hoc patet. Si autem quantum ad effectum, sic expresse praesignabatur in manna, sicut ostendunt rationes praedictae; et sic patet responsio ad utramque partem.

Sed tamen adhuc restat quaestio: quare expressior praefiguratio praecessit in lege naturae quantum ad ritum? Et ad hoc dicendum, quod quia Dominus instituit legem scriptam ut implendam et evacuandam, sicut veritas evacuat umbram; ideo, ne videremur iudaizare, disposuit figuras in lege Moysi dare expressas6, sed tamen differentes quantum ad ritum, ut manifeste ex earum institutione ostenderetur legis illius evacuatio et imperfectio; et ideo magis se dicit Christus sacerdotem secundum ordinem Melchisedech quam Aaron, ut ostendatur ibi legis et sacerdotii translatio, sicut ostendit Apostolus ad Hebraeos7. Et sic patet totum.

---

English Translation
p. 183

Question III. On the preeminence of the figures.

Thirdly it is asked concerning this, about the preeminence of the figures, and it is asked which figure is the more expressive: whether the one that existed in the time of the law of nature, or the one that existed in the time of the Mosaic law, or the one that existed in the time of the law of grace. And that the one which existed in the time of the law of nature [is the more expressive] seems [to be the case]:

1. By the authority of Ambrose, On the Sacraments1: « It appears that the Sacraments of the Christians were earlier than those of the Jews »; but this is not said except by reason of the law of nature: therefore in some way the Sacraments of the Christians existed more [fully] in that time: yet not as to truth or efficacy: therefore as to the expressiveness of the figure.

2. Likewise, the law of nature agrees more with the law of grace, or of the Gospel, than does the law of Moses, because the evangelical law has more from natural dictate than from institution, whereas the contrary is the case in the law of Moses2: therefore its Sacraments too figure [things] more expressively, as it seems.

3. Likewise, this same thing seems [to follow] by reason: because Melchisedech offered sacrifice in bread and wine3, and the Sacrament of the altar is now offered and celebrated in the same species: therefore, since it cannot be figured more expressively than in something like it as to species, it seems that then the most expressive figure preceded.

On the contrary 1. Hugh of Saint Victor argues4: As the passion of the Savior drew near, so the signs ought to have been more evident; and the reason for this is that knowledge of the truth grew: therefore, since in the time of the written law knowledge of the truth grew, and the passion of the Savior drew near, it seems that the figures were more expressive.

2. Likewise, this seems [to hold] to the letter in the manna: because that food was from heaven, refreshing all equally and common to all and having every sweetness5; but the bread and wine of Melchisedech were from the earth, and this Sacrament is the bread coming down from heaven: therefore it seems that the figure of the manna was the more expressive.

Conclusion.

Those figures of the different laws mutually exceed one another in expressiveness.

I respond: It must be said that the figures of those laws, according to diverse considerations, mutually exceed one another in expressiveness, as the arguments brought forward show. — For this Sacrament can be prefigured as to its rite, or as to its effect, or as to its sign, or as to the thing signified. If as to the rite, then the more expressive figure preceded in the sacrifice of Melchisedech, as the arguments brought forward prove; and this is plain. But if as to the effect, then it was expressly presignified in the manna, as the aforesaid arguments show; and thus the response to both sides is plain.

But yet a question still remains: why did the more expressive prefiguration, as to the rite, precede in the law of nature? And to this it must be said that, because the Lord instituted the written law as something to be fulfilled and done away with, just as truth does away with the shadow; therefore, lest we should seem to judaize, he arranged to give the figures in the law of Moses expressed6, yet differing as to the rite, so that from their very institution the doing-away and imperfection of that law might be manifestly shown; and therefore Christ says of himself rather that he is a priest according to the order of Melchisedech than of Aaron, in order that there might be shown there the transfer of the law and of the priesthood, as the Apostle shows to the Hebrews7. And thus the whole is plain.

---

Apparatus Criticus
  1. 1
    Libr. IV. c. 3. n. 10. et 11. Vide hic lit. Magistri, c. 2. — Inferius ex codd. B F H aa substituimus non dicitur pro non videtur.
    [Ambrose, On the Sacraments,] book IV, c. 3, nn. 10 and 11. See here the text of the Master, c. 2. — Below, from codices B, F, H, aa, we substitute non dicitur ("is not said") for non videtur ("does not seem").
  2. 2
    Cfr. supra d. 1. p. II. a. 1. q. 3, et III. Sent. d. 40. q. 1. ad 3.
    Cf. above, d. 1, part II, a. 1, q. 3, and III Sentences, d. 40, q. 1, ad 3.
  3. 3
    Gen. 14, 18.
    Gen. 14:18.
  4. 4
    Libr. I. de Sacram. p. XI. c. 6. Verba ipsius vide supra d. 2. a. I. q. 2. fundam. I. — Inferius pro ergo cum... crevit... appropinquavit substituimus ex codd. H Z aa ergo cum... creverit... appropinquaverit.
    On the Sacraments, book I, part XI, c. 6. For his words see above, d. 2, a. 1, q. 2, fundamentum 1. — Below, for ergo cum... crevit... appropinquavit we substitute, from codices H, Z, aa, ergo cum... creverit... appropinquaverit.
  5. 5
    Exod. 16, 14. seqq., et Sap. 16, 20. seq. — Seq. textus est Ioan. 6, 50: Hic est panis de caelo descendens.
    Exod. 16:14ff., and Wis. 16:20f. — The following text is John 6:50: This is the bread which comes down from heaven.
  6. 6
    In cod. E manus secunda supplevit quantum ad effectum.
    In codex E a second hand supplied as to the effect.
  7. 7
    Cap. 7, 11. seqq. — Vide scholion ad 1. huius articuli quaest.
    Chapter 7:11ff. — See the scholion to question 1 of this article. ---
Cited by

1 further reference addresses the article or printed page this question belongs to, rather than the question itself.

← Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 1, Q. 2Dist. 8, Part 1, Art. 2, Q. 1→